ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ต.ค. 2024
- Su-33 Flanker-D fighter, NAVY modifiction of Su-27. General program - take-offs and landings on "Admiral Kuznetsov" carrier. And in addition - unique view of one Su-33 refuelling another Su-33! I never thought they can do such a things! Plus missile launch demonstration and excellent "Kobra" figure! just so you know i didnt make this video i just love russian fighter jets
Even as an American, I admire this amazing piece of Russian technology
This is not a commercial song. This video was made by Sukhoi. I was missing this ever since my PC died... thanks nikkit for putting this on TH-cam! :D
Having a Su33 refuel another Su33 would actually be a lot less trouble than using another plane. As you can imagine it is much easier for them to match speeds and handling conditions. Plus the turbulance behind a Su33 would be a lot less severe than say an American KC135 or a KC130 going max speed, most jet fighters would be on the verge of stalling trying to go slow enough to connect.
The cobra is still an incredible maneuver to watch though.
the sukhoi flankers really are the most beautiful planes in the world.
@JVC7400 True. Detection range matters and I'm not disputing that. Regarding F-35 though, I'm not sure whether Su-35S will be purchased with L-band AESAs in wing leading edge which will change the detection range. We'll have to see how RuAF will order their stuff.
@EMT308 as you noticed, the Admiral Kusnetsov does not need a catapulting system. the Su-33 has enough power to start from the angled jump pad (just like on the british carriers the harrier does)
Beautiful plane and excellent music! This video is saved to my favorites. :-D
@OpelGTC one of unique aspects is the shortened tail boom between the engines
@cchanderson
I think this plane came in to serves during the 90's. It was finished during the 80's
I love this plane. It's one of the many reasons I have a massive amount for Russia.
IMO aesthetically the SU-33 is the most beautiful fighter a/c in the world, when as a kid I was drawing fighters it always looked like a MIG29 or SU33 despite I'm dutch and we have F16's here ;)
Yup, you got that right Nikitns!
And yes, I remember the old US-India war game. This year, for the RedFlag exercise, Indian Sukhoi pilots have been ordered NOT to use their new Irbis radars... obvious reasons.
i dont like war but its cool to see these fighters and awsome techonologies people have
In the description of Su-33 at wikipedia you can also find: "Also, with a ski jump launch, the aircraft can engage full afterburner earlier than a catapult launch, because the aircraft is restrained by pop-up detents rather than a catapult shoe. Once in the air the aircraft has a positive AOA as well as pitch angular speed which increases during acceleration, and assists the climb. This method does require an aircraft that is more stable and maneuverable at low speeds."
@JVC7400 Yeah. Suspicions may keep it spotty for the time being, but at this point we're all just developing aircraft to stay current and to stay ahead of any customers for either nation's export weapons. That's why fighter development was important, is important, and will be for the forseeable future.
As an American who loves his country and respects Russia, I hope whenever our fighters meet with sights squarely set on each other it's for exercises to improve the breed.
2:22 i admire this f@cking maneurability that su series has,,,
damn,,,, its Perfect, its the best,,,,,
Budgetary restraints have forced the Russian Federation to retire its very impressive Su-33 multirole Carrier Fighter from service aboard Kuznetsov, replacing aircraft in active service with an updated, navalised, variant of the excellent MiG-29. This dovetails neatly with India's interest in the MiG-29, allowing some of the cost of development and retooling to be spread out over a wider basis.
Since the Su-33 is a generation newer in concept a small drop in overall capability in the Air Wing aboard Kuznetsov (especially in regards to mission endurance with full load, but also burdened by lower weight external mission load totals, meaning fewer ECM pods or less tonnage of ordnance carried per strike) is to be expected.
Still, I'd rather be rocketing straight up in the MiG-29, a smaller, more intimate, type conceptually similar in impact to the infamous MiG-21 "Pocket Rocket", which scared the west silly, back in the late '50s and all through the '60s.
Here's the Wikipedia on the Su-33, including the tiny production number and the switch to the MiG:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-33
Its because the flanker is aerodynamically stable enough to have such low takeoff speed without stalling, thus removing the need to build catapults. (less landing gear reinforcement = less weight = more payload)
You only see the canards on the Naval flankers because it is there to improve low speed handling.
me impresionan todos los aviones de combate rusos
To answer your question, the MiG-29K production line is currently running due to an export to India, the Russian SU-33 airframes are in dire need of replacement and it was far more cost effective to bolt on extra MiG-29s to the Indian production run for the Navy's requirement than it would be to start up the SU-33 production line again to make new jets for the Navy.
@RRVCrinale exactly, the T-50's and Su-35/30MKI are not build against america but for export and money, its a commercial brance. thats why they are made by companies like Mikoyan and locheed Martin.
The Su-33 is a heavy air combat jet some F-14, the F-18 is short and limit operation, the Su-33 is a one naval air combat jet, over Rafale and Harrier air combate jet.
@blairmulcahy
You are sooo right. The american carriers are so big they are US territory! Massive target, key to the mission, sink the carrier, and that is a major set back. The Russian ones look nicer, and along with the FA18, the SU33 would be my choice for carrier fighters. Also, hit the deck of a US carrier and they have to repair the deck and catapult. For the Adm. Kuznetzov just repair the deck.
the ramp is due to the lack of aircraft catipult research when the admiral kuztensov was being constructed, so the ramp helps the aircraft gain extra lift.
@Spetsnazovets This is not what i meant... first of all, im talking about the next decade, russia has accuired 60 su-35's with 12 already in service. The US is looking forward to purchase 2443 F-35's.
The Irbis-e can detect 0,01 m2 target at 90 km away. the F-22 has a RCS signature of a marble, (ball with 1,4 cm diameter). now you do the math, all i am saying that it is way smaller than what the SU-35 can pick up at a fair distance. Compare this to what distance the Su-35 will be detected.
@supermankicass You are absolutely right! Thay have!
@pR05t0 We have always had both.....thank you!
2:21. Tom Cruise would love this aircraft!
@ganarzon Look up the weapons loadout of this carrier. It has a compliment of anti-ship missiles. Granit i think. Russians call it Aircraft carrying battle cruiser for a good reason.
Beautiful jet i love american and russian jets if they got to together they would be unstoppable
Very Cool. But I didn't like the Bond style explosion sound placed over the video.
But otherwise, one of the better aviation videos I've seen.
All these Su-33s need is a thorough avionics and mission systems refit to Su-35S standards. They are still fine airframes that will show at least 90% of modern fighters today what it can do. The only thing that this plane can be faulted on is its electronics.
@YZach Also if it were to fire 180 degrees back, the missile will have to go through 0 velocity region which would reduce its range even more since the missile will first bring itself to a literal stand-still (where it'll simply start falling out of the sky) and then it'd have to accelerate up and towards a target. Try remembering that firing up from low speed (as F-35 will) reduces missile range while firing down from high speed (as Su-35S will) increases it. Kinematics are fun :)
@ImTheMightyOne Cheers. I havent looked that up for a while and my memory is a bit rusty.
This is really a nice video, thanks a lot to the uploader.
@YZach LOL FYO the only missiles that MIGHT have that ability are AIM-9X and F-35 would use DAS for that. But you failed to read my post: With Flanker firing first, from 25km, its OUTSIDE AIM-9X RANGE of 10km hence CAN'T be killed by it since AIM-9X can't hit targets beyond its max range. Also to shoot 180 degrees back, F-35 would have to be in "see through plane" mode and the pilot'd have to look back and lock onto it for the missile to have an idea where actually to go.
Lets not forget the date of design. Its essentially still a 1990 design with old avionics while Super Hornet was relatively recently produced. It can turn with 8G and possibly more while F/A-18E/F can have about 7.5 if my figures are correct. Also Super Hornet doesn't do Mach2+ due to fixed-geometry intakes. Su does 2300km/h. Super Hornet has vastly better avionics package.
Best fighter plane in the world,no plane is a match to this
@Spetsnazovets aircraft carrying battle cruiser!! i like that
Bigger, faster doesn't mean better. The hornet is the first naval jet of its kind that is a fighter and attack plane, which is why the F-14 was decommd. Israel doesnt need a carrier jet, they use the F-15 and 16 (and Kfir) since they meet the attack and air superiority roles. Ask anyone who has flown both the F-14 and F-18 and let them tell you which is better for the intended role. The JSF is due to enter service in the US Navy soon. 8 other countries currently use the hornet (AUT,CAN)
They take off easily, but it would be nice to see the suspense of a full payload and a large amount of fuel aboard.
I do not love war. But high technologies are necessary to avoid it. But some countries understand it scornfully.
Una obra de arte y de ingenierìa y !no usa sistemas de propulsiòn auxiliares, o sea catapultas, lo cual habla de su potencia, soberbio.
Only F-14 available? News flash, the F-14 has been retried from US front line service and replaced by the F-!8 Super Hornet, which is a better performing plane compared to the F-14. The F-14 was designed for long range interception (w/ Phoenix ). It would be interesting to see how the 33 would compare to the new Lockheed JSF. It can perform the cobra, and take off/land vertically.
@supermankicass Russian contemporary planes, generation for generation have matched or exceeded US designs kinematically (maneuverability) but were often one for one behind on electronics utilizing asymmetric measures to negate/degrade western capabilities while developing own response. Since USSR collapsed Russian military tech was left without state support but still the best kept up and now they are back on the heels US with new designs.
@harris3693 not exactly, the terminator is not even a fighter in service. just a tech demonstrator
Probably my favourite fighter in the world, definitely my favourite russian fighter!!
From Australia!
@JVC7400 yes unfortunately they only have one carrier, before the end of the cold war, russia had something like six carriers and two others under construction. But as we all know the money ran out.
yes i love russian jets to for there lack of technology they have great designs such as su-47 and others. the great mobility and power of these jets will make up for anything in a fight. id like to see what russia and america can come up with together
Irrespective of the ability of the carrier or aircraft SURELY everyone has to agree that the Soviet Carrier looks much better, a absolute man made beauty, as does the Su-33 compared to an Eagle or Tomcat
What a beauty!
Player is Joe Satriani for sure, they love to use his music a lot for Sukhoi videos!
As to external fuel: none of the Flankers, except the newest Su-27BM use external fuel pods due to the fact that their range on internal fuel makes them meet expectations that were placed on them in Russian armed forces. So, I can imagine the Su-33 taking off on 60% internal fuel and with a full weapons load. Doesn't seem to be a problem, since its range on 100% is 3000km.
Sometimes the refueled aircraft go far away in mission while the refueler stays near the ship as refueler and as an airborne defence for the ships around. Western aircrafts can do that too. for ex on Dassault Rafale and other aircraft they add a refueling pod under fuselage or under the wing.
There would be insane when we could see videos like this, but with the PAKFA :A
2:20 WOW o.O
Actually the thrust vectoring version of this aircraft is the SU-37
Don't forget what he said about thrust vectoring. The Su does not have that. They tried it with the Su-37. Which was an Su-27 with thrust conversions and what not. 2 crashed, the third was turned back into a 27. So far Russian efforts wit thrust vectoring and engine reliability have been failures.
Su-33 offer to China and India, without F-14 of US NAVY. the Su-33 is the best caza in aircraft carrier.
very impressive plane
@JVC7400 erm. F-22 has RCS 0.3 м². Irbis would detect that pretty easily.
thats what YOU think.but you are a bit right for some thing ,f22 need better missiles,range,stealth !(btw:russian radar and missiles can easily see Stealth plane ,just like f14 and f16 and f18...
Aircraft Carriers are part of a larger offensive army. In fact you don't need aircraft carriers if you've a defensive military strategy, like Russia does.
Now, about US so called BVR advantege:
AIM-120 AMRAAM: Speed: Mach 4 Top range with top version: 180Kms, Warhead, 23 Kgs fragmentation.
Guidence: Active radar, INS.
Vymppel R-77M1
Warheads: 30Kgs
Speed: Over mach 4.
Range: 175 Km
Guidence: Inertial with mid-course update and terminal active radar homing
The Vympel is also considerd far more accurate and manouvrebal than the AIM-120 AARAAM..
Also, as i said, the new Sukhois are now being fitted with EW,so i dont see much of an advantege to US
@JVC7400 I won't call them liars. But in different procpects they have very different information. And we can argue forever which is right and still would be far away from truth. I had a talk with one of radar engineers - he told me about that RCS. Maybe I got him wrong, but Irbis radar espesially designed to see "stealth" aircrafts such as F-22 and F-35 and missiles from at least 90km range.
awesome...
2:20 - 2:26 Anyone else reminded of Ace Combat: Assault Horizon's counter-maneuvers? =D
My favorite plane, considering how much the flanker looks like a bird of prey.
@YZach I merely stated my professional opinion as an aviation techo. Another thing you STILL ignore is the missile range. I never said that LOAL is impossible. I stated about what that kind of launch will do to its missiles range. While that kind of shot might be possible, the missile will simply not reach its target since its outside the range the missile can cover.
DAME THIS SONG ROCKS
fantastic video bravo.thx.
@Spetsnazovets The russian radars are more powerfull, and it gives them a better performance with the L-bands against the lower-signature aircraft. The comming UAV's have a smaller RCS than the raptor.
@Spetsnazovets та які контейнери і які відсіки)) Х-51 зараз кріплять під крило бмбардувальника В-52 , там він з прискорювачем і стартує але це просто випробування самого Х-51! в повному проекті Х-51 буде постійно знаходитись на орбті землі в безпілотному апараті Х-37! сам Х-37 дуже компактний і невеличкий апарат "багаторазового призначення"! (сідати він буде походу сам автоматично) на орбіті він спокійно відкриває бомболюкі)) і гасить Х-51ми по земних цілях..
@supermankicass That's interesting. And what kind of air to air kill ratio does the MIG-29 have? How about the SU-27 and its millions of varients? Have any of them shot down an F-16 or F-15? That's a trick question. Who is best is proven on the battlefield. Not at an airshow.
man i wanna fly that... loks awesome!
The F-22 has fancy LO technology, which comes at a trade off,while the max G figure for the F-22 is 7.5 G The F-16 and F-15 have a max G of 9+, Although, the F-22 also has thrust vectoring which probably makes it's turn rate pretty good, But the F-16 and F-15's still can make much more powerful 9 G turns hmmm,
The Sukhoi design bureau produces some of the finest aircraft in the world! The Su-33, 34, 35, 37, etc. All look like the Su-27! The reason? If it ain't broke don't fix it! The airframe has been able to out fly the American aircraft from the start! U.S. Doctrine plays way too much into technology and not maneuverability. Russian doctrine is that no matter what air war will eventually deteriorate into a dogfight. The Russian aircraft prevail in this. And the tech is now matching U.S. tech.
@arkstone Yes, he says they are designed to track them, but have they ever picked one up, (And identified) one of them? it may be buildt to do it. but that does not mean it works in practical.
- But how are they going to know that the RCS is 0,03 m2?
The Russian might have the more impressive aircraft on their deck, but the USN has them beaten by sheer bulk alone. Currently, the US have a dozen nuclear-powered supercarriers and the Russians have that one small carrier.
@Ouija1210 actually, after the cuban crysis, the relationship between russia and USA is getting better.
This is a great video. What soundtrack is that ? Very good
that is one great plane...
@KEEPitGREEN4201 Are you referring to the "feel" of it or actual advantages? I just don't exactly understand what you are trying to say there. It would feel great for accelerating fast no doubt.
Sukhoi's are freaking huge. 72-74 feet long. 10 longer then the F-15, which was as long as a WWII bomber.
جعلكم الساحق الماحق والبلا المتلاحق يامال الشوزن
lol i like how they have a ramp instead of steam projection system
this is a nice video and the su-33 is a nice jet
The Russian built some good airframes & engines which look impressive but have been let down with poor electronics. For the electronics in the SS-18 ICBM of the 1980's diplomats around the world bought Nintento game boys, removed the micro chips, sent to the Soviet union and used them in the control systems. After the Iranian revolution the radar from an F14 was sent to Moscow and the phased-array radar in modern Soviet fighters is still based on this design. Also supplied to Iran.
>For the electronics in the SS-18 ICBM of the 1980's diplomats around the world bought Nintento game boys, removed the micro chips, sent to the Soviet union and used them in the control systems
For the Great Justice... There are no any microchips in SS-18 ICBM (it's clockwork and steampunk stuff over there:)), so your Cold War fairy tale is bull shit.
This is hard facts i brought. you brought hard nationalism...
I'm as much a patriot as the next guy, but I have to agree
@spartandescendant just as a note, this aircraft operates from the single russian carrier, the only one russia has.
-By the way why should russia go to war against the US? thats stupid. burry your anger, this is not the cold war anymore, it ended 20 years ago.
@bombarderoazul Actually, they sold those carriers.. To India and China, they had the money, but after the Cold War and USSR, Russia doesnt fund all it's money to the military.
In soviet russia, planes launch aircraft carriers !
I never said they are alive, but they are nowhere what they once were and considered, they are a power, but there are a number of countries that could give Russia a run for their money.
holy shit it doesnt even need a catapult
nice video, nice background music too, anyone have any idea what's name of this music? many thanks.
@harris3693 Yes, of course. but these exercices were in simulators and ONLY in short range combat... so come again, the F-35 is not build for short range combat like the Su-35. and with quantity the US airforce still outnumbers the russian. 62 Su-35's against 2443 F-35's...
1000000000000000 times better than the F/A-18 SUPERHORNET Russians just are very good at building tanks,weapons,fighters like SU, MIG they are pretty much good at everything army
If you look carfully you can see a little bit of f16 and f15 mix together
@cchanderson
It is right out of the 1970s. 1976 or so specifically. But then again, so is everything (save the F-22) in the U.S. F-15 Eagle? 1972. F-16 Falcon? 1974. F/A-18? 1978.
As for the Su-33 here, it was developed right around 1979 or so and entered service with the Soviet Navy in the mid 80s. Third world countries don't fly these things, they're too poor to afford them.
Like U.S. machines, the Su-33 recieves periodic updating to its avionics and other systems to keep it up to date.