0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
2,940 $
5 DAYS UNTIL END OF MAY

Russian Naval Aviation To Get Modernized Version Of Su-33 Carrier-Based Fighter

Donate

Russian Naval Aviation To Get Modernized Version Of Su-33 Carrier-Based Fighter

Click to see the full-size image

Modernized Su-33 carrier-based fighter jets will enter service with an air wing of the Kuznetsov heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser, Naval Aviation Chief Major-General Igor Kozhin says.

According to Major-General Kozhin, the Su-33 will get a boosted propulsion, an improved detection system and other features. Thus, it will become a “really multi-role” fighter. The Naval Aviation Chief pointed out that most changes are related to electronic “gubbins” of the jets.

The video below was originally released by SouthFront in 2016:

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • occupybacon

    “RUSSIAN NAVAL AVIATION” what a sad joke

    • Jesus

      US naval aviation deployed by coffin carriers susceptible to a myriad of supersonic and hypersonic missiles is a sad joke since hundreds of billions are invested in this outdated strategic concept.
      On the other hand, Kuznetsov and its naval air arm have significant defensive/offensive support to make a significant impact in any naval operation.

      • BMWA1

        Yes, it is a niche, not a strategic force.

        • occupybacon

          Economy is the most strategic force and the US are defending their Dollar with the carriers > that’s how indirectly the carriers can hit Russia, through economic sanctions.

          • BMWA1

            In North Atlantic, South Indian Ocean, east Pacific yes, but this zone of control is constantly eroding due to missile advances and political developments. Just two bases, a Chinese base in the Horn of Africa and one Russian in south Caribbean can greatly alter this ‘strategic oceanography’ based upon the safe operational range of carrier groups, particularly in key nodes (Antacrtic coast will be safe for some time, though).

          • occupybacon

            It’s only $20-30 billions per year for maintenance, for all the carriers, that’s pocket money for the US. Sinking one of these would mean war with NATO. Many poor people hope for a WW3 because they envy Westerners but their leaders will always prefer the Dollar over certain death ;)

          • Mike

            Solomon kupec is posting garbage again.

          • Mike

            Zionist solomon is running scared of the day the U.S. sugar daddy finally falls, where would parasite Israel be without the U.S., there solomon kupec.

      • Barba_Papa

        I disagree, the Kuznetsov’s air wing only has limited air defense and even less offensive capabilities, due to the Kuznetsov not having any catapults. The jump assisted take off severely limits what Russian aircraft can carry in both fuel and weaponry, all the more so since offensive weaponry weighs more then air to air missiles. The Chinese understood this, which is why they are going for CATOBAR carriers as the mainstay of their future carrier fleet.

        Now it can be argued that Russia doesn’t need carriers as a strategic concept, because carriers are rightly so very vulnerable in this day and age in actual peer to peer naval combat. They only exist as a means to park some offensive firepower off some brown country’s shore to bomb some sense into them. In that sense Russia doesn’t need 10 carrier battle groups. But it could use one or two, with the actual means to launch some kind of airgroup that can actually throw more at an enemy then just tiny bombs and not much else.

        • Jesus

          The point made is that antiship missiles checkmate carrier strike groups. Kuznetsov with its limitations deployed within the parameters of Russian antiship capabilities, can be more effective than US carriers.

          • occupybacon

            And they are vulnerable to the nukes, you forgot the nukes, dude!

          • Barba_Papa

            It depends, Kuznetsov is probably very good at sinking US CVBG’s with its missiles. Everything else it sucks at, and in that, like projecting US military power to every corner and country of the world that isn’t called Russia or China US carriers do quite well. Since nuclear armed countries that are not called Pakistan and India are not that likely to go to war with each other Kutznetsov is basically useless to the Russians. It’s attempt to project Russian power into Syria was basically a joke. Whether or not the ship broke down on the way to Syria, its small airgroup could not do much inside Syria, any loss through accidents crippled its small size even further and the airgroup’s effectiveness actually increased when some of them were moved ashore because they could now take off with greater payloads.

            Kuznetsov is a product of the Cold War, when the Soviet navy’s job was to sink as much NATO ships in order for the flow of US reinforcements to the battle in Germany to be stopped. Projecting Soviet power by parking a Soviet CVBG ashore of some brown country was not in its mission statement. In that sense Kuznetsov serves no purpose to the Russian navy of today. Frigates and destroyers can do the sink US carriers with massive missile spam also. Russia would do well to think over what it wants with this ship. It’s not really needed as an aircraft carrying missile cruiser, and as a floating airfield it is severely lacking. If it wants to project Russian power to other parts of the world that are not the US or NATO then its probably better to remove the large missile silos, increase the hangar deck and install some catapults on the damn thing. After all, the Chinese also employ a similar doctrine of using missile spam to fight the USN. They know that against the USN, pure carriers are useless. And yet they are building them anyway. Because I reckon they do seem to value them for the same way as the US uses them. Project power to the far corners of the world that are not 1st tier opponents.

          • Jesus

            Kuznetsov is not a pure aircraft carrier, besides aircraft the ship can fire antiship missiles, surface to air missiles, in a way it can be self sufficient without a great need of escorts.
            So Kuznetsov’s mission in Syria was not a smashing success, you have to consider that Mig 29k crews had to be trained and had limited experience operating from a carrier.
            Kuznetsov along with other large capital ships from the Soviet era are going to be remodernized using the latest technology and armaments, a Kuznetsov task force in the Mediteranean would be effective power projection for Northern Africa.

            As far as the Chinese building carriers, they are doing so for a balanced approach in case of blue water warfare, not relying exclusively on the DF 21-26 carrier killer missiles, their carriers will have adequate escorts and probably outnumber the number of carriers US could deploy in the area. China with 4-5 carrier task forces along with the fortified and armed islands in South China Sea, and the DF 21-26 missiles would provide with more than a reasonable deterent to any US visions of invincibility.

          • Barba_Papa

            The point remains, its a ship specialized for a certain role, at the expense of other roles. Optimized to fight NATO fleets in the North Atlantic, with the airgroup only necessary to defend its taskforce against NATO air attacks. For power projection, ship with a large Kalibr battery would be of equal value then Kuznetsov’s limited airgroup, and said ship would be a hell of a lot cheaper to operate.

            They say a jack of all trades is a master of none, but specialists are of limited value outside of their specializations as well. The big US carriers may be of limited value in a conflict against Russia or China, for everything else they are pretty useful. Jack of all trades have their uses because the conditions that require specialists occur a hell of a lot less then the ones in which jack of all trades can still be a of use.

            If the Russians want Kuznetsov to be of any other use then a US carrier killer they need to increase its airgroup’s effectiveness. And this is not a question of its pilots just needing more experience. It’s airgroup needs to gain the ability to take off with greater weapons and fuel loads. More fuel means more range, more payload means actual power projection. The ski jump has to go and be replaced with catapults. And if the airgroup can be doubled from its current 20+ to 40+ that would also mean more power projection. As it stands a battery of granit shipkiller missiles equals zero power projection in a deployment in the med bombing lets say ISIS Jihadis in Libya. And a single Kalibr missile probably costs more to take out a target then a single aircraft mission dropping a bomb on them.

            I still think Russia needs to think what it wants to do with its navy. Defense of the homeland? Then Kuznetsov is not really needed. Any mix of frigates, destroyers and submarines armed with potent anti-ship missiles will do. Project power abroad akin to how NATO navies do it (as in bomb brown countries), then Kuznetsov needs to be become a full CATOBAR carrier and drop its missile batteries.

          • Jesus

            I do not see the Russians converting the Kuznetsov to CATOBAR carrier, I do not think they are interested in enlarging the air wing, because it would require heavier planes doing the surveillance, EW, awac work, they will remove the big missiles and replace them with Kalibr and Zircon, it is possible to make it into an helicopter carrier, or have a combo of helicopters and Suk33 that carry long range standoff weapons. The limited range of the Suk 33 because of fuel constraints would be compensated by an air launched Kalibr type missile or Zircon, extending the reach of the carrier to a minimum 1500 kms.

          • Barba_Papa

            You can always use missiles, I agree, but I reckon a single aircraft mission to drop bombs costs less then launching a cruise missile at it. Those things are expensive. The Douma retaliation strike on Syria cost the US what? 750 million dollars? I reckon that’s the reason why Russia has used Kalibr only vary sparingly in the Syrian war, in total less were fired over the entire period of the Russian intervention then the US fired Tomahawks in a single ‘retaliatory strike’. Even the US doesn’t use them that much, always preferring to use aircraft instead. They’re only being used when the range is either too long for aircraft, or the environment is too dangerous for aircraft. Which in my POV kinda defeats the purpose of equipping a carrier with these missiles. Its purpose should be to carry aircraft, not the backup weapons in case aircraft cannot be used. That’s for the carrier’s support vessels.

            Also long range standoff weapons for aircraft are heavy. Too heavy for an aircraft that has to use its own power to take off from a carrier.

    • Raptar Driver

      Bacon, now I’m hungry.

    • Mike

      A sad joke is you solomon kupec continuing to change your profile because of your zionist hatred of Russia and their thwarting of your settlers state plans’s for Syrian and the middle east.

  • russ

    The only purpose of Russian naval aviation is to carry ship/carrier group killing hypersonic missiles, nothing to do with engaging enemy fighters.

    • goingbrokes

      Yes, I can’t see any other vital reasons either. Certainly Russia is not trying to replicate US empire building strategy of using carrier groups to bully weak nations into submission.
      Another aspect could be anti-submarine warfare, and as part of that, anti-missile role (SLBM or SLCM), particularly in the EW department. Cruise missiles skimming the sea are fairly difficult to locate, but they are relatively slow, so if they are located the chances of taking them out are high. Carrier based jets become a force multiplier in that instance by taking the surveillance ability much further out to the sea. NATO used multiple routes for their multi-missile attack on Syria trying to evade all eyes.

      • russ

        It’s simple economics. Russia can’t afford aircraft battle groups (neither can we). They are ducks in a phone, with a dozen eats to sink them. At least half of our military budget is used up by profiteering. It is a top five industry, matched only by banking, illicit drugs, oil, big pharma, all of which are government protected monopolies. Russia gets twice as quality military weapons for one tenth of the cost.

  • opet ja

    They need carrier first. Speaking of it, any information will they EVER put Kuznietsov back in the fleet?

  • Tudor Miron

    There are two exellent documentaries about Timur Apakidze and Russian naval aviation. Creation of naval aviation coincided with dissolution of CCCP. It was tragic times but some real (not holiwood type) heroic people kept their oath and honor.
    Afterburner (Форсаж) https://youtu.be/-uz5U80qePI and Crimea. Sky of Motherland (Крым. Небо Родины) https://youtu.be/dTW3bTgl-XU

  • Justin

    they got the planes…. now they need a bloody good carrier! Or at least make the one they got more reliable!