McCain proves he's a dumbass

[Alyeska]

I know you are joking, but the US Military will never, ever, ever, ever equip itself with Russian hardware. It would be too much of an embarrassment.

Unfortunately true. A fully "Americanized" (avionics, engines, and weapons) Su-27K/Su-33 would have kicked the shit out of the F/A-18E Sewer Horror- erm I mean Super Hornet, if it had been competing.

The Super Hornet is a multi mission strike fighter. The Su-27 is a superiority fighter. Its no surprise who would win.

[Vympel]

The Super Hornet is a multi mission strike fighter. The Su-27 is a superiority fighter. Its no surprise who would win.

No, I'm talking about taking over it's mission, not who would win in a fight. The Su-27K has more fuel, carries the same maximum warload (8,000kg), is faster, and has one more weapons station than the F/A-18E/F. It is also a far superior air combat peformer in both BVR/WVR. With a Raytheon AESA radar (an approaching upgrade for the Super Hornet), American avionics and weaponry, and a probable engine replacement (anything that's close to the 122kN thrust of the AL-31F), the Hornet simply would not be able to compete, in any department whatsoever.

[Iceberg]

The Super Hornet is a multi mission strike fighter. The Su-27 is a superiority fighter. Its no surprise who would win.

No, I'm talking about taking over it's mission, not who would win in a fight.

To replace the Super Hornet, the Su-27 would have to be redesigned with an American tailhook, reinforced landing gear, a catapult tow bar, reinforced nose structure to handle the stress of thousands of carrier launches, American engines, avionics, weapons... basically, it would require designing an entirely new, 100% American aircraft that just happens to LOOK like a Su-27.

[Alyeska]

The Super Hornet is a multi mission strike fighter. The Su-27 is a superiority fighter. Its no surprise who would win.

No, I'm talking about taking over it's mission, not who would win in a fight. The Su-27K has more fuel, carries the same maximum warload (8,000kg), is faster, and has one more weapons station than the F/A-18E/F. It is also a far superior air combat peformer in both BVR/WVR. With a Raytheon AESA radar (an approaching upgrade for the Super Hornet), American avionics and weaponry, and a probable engine replacement (anything that's close to the 122kN thrust of the AL-31F), the Hornet simply would not be able to compete, in any department whatsoever.

Modifying the Su-27 to work on a US carrier just might make it less capable then the F-18.

One thing people forget is that Naval aircraft are opperating under certain restrictions that land bassed aircraft don't have. Naval aircraft tend to be heavier and can't carry quite as much fuel or payloads. Put a Su-27 on the deck of a carrier while modified to fly off a carrier, and now you might get some problems.

[Vympel]

To replace the Super Hornet, the Su-27 would have to be redesigned with an American tailhook, reinforced landing gear, a catapult tow bar, reinforced nose structure to handle the stress of thousands of carrier launches, American engines, avionics, weapons... basically, it would require designing an entirely new, 100% American aircraft that just happens to LOOK like a Su-27.

What part of the "K" in Su-27K has escaped your notice, exactly?



The American tailhook/ catapult tow bar is not a big issue, and it would not require a major redesign of the structure whatsoever- just the black boxes. Which has already been done again and again, with mixing and matching of Israeli and French avionics, as well as repeated upgrades of the Russian ones over various models, in both test and service aircraft.

[Alyeska]

Ah, the Su-27K is the naval model.

The Su-27 would still need some fairly big changes in its design. Right now its designed to use a ski-jump. Designing it to take the abuse of a catapult will add weight to the design. It would also need avionics upgrades as well as weapon hardpoint changes.

[Vympel]

Modifying the Su-27 to work on a US carrier just might make it less capable then the F-18.

You'd have to work REAL hard to make an Su-27K less capable than an F/A-18E- a bit more weight ain't gonna do it. Basically- take the Su-27K and make it look like an F/A-18C. Perfect way to make it less capable than an F/A-18E.

One thing people forget is that Naval aircraft are opperating under certain restrictions that land bassed aircraft don't have. Naval aircraft tend to be heavier and can't carry quite as much fuel or payloads. Put a Su-27 on the deck of a carrier while modified to fly off a carrier, and now you might get some problems.

Didn't give the Russians any problems- all that's required are catapult mods. The hard landings have already been dealt with.

[Vympel]

Ah, the Su-27K is the naval model.

The Su-27 would still need some fairly big changes in its design. Right now its designed to use a ski-jump. Designing it to take the abuse of a catapult will add weight to the design. It would also need avionics upgrades as well as weapon hardpoint changes.

I feel like there's an echo in here

Isn't that what I've been saying the whole time? The F/A-18E has no inherent advantages in this respect either- you could design an American variant of an Su-27K in the same, if not shorter, time period than the F/A-18E, which was an all new aircraft, despite the deceptive name.

[Alyeska]

Ah, the Su-27K is the naval model.

The Su-27 would still need some fairly big changes in its design. Right now its designed to use a ski-jump. Designing it to take the abuse of a catapult will add weight to the design. It would also need avionics upgrades as well as weapon hardpoint changes.

I feel like there's an echo in here

Isn't that what I've been saying the whole time? The F/A-18E has no inherent advantages in this respect either- you could design an American variant of an Su-27K in the same, if not shorter, time period than the F/A-18E, which was an all new aircraft, despite the deceptive name.

And you aren't paying attention to what I am saying. I am stating the difficulties the Su-27K would be under. Did I state it would be better? Hell no. It could very well be that trying to get the Su-27K working on a US carrier makes it less effective in the role.

Did you know that US Naval aircraft have to be built heavier then normal to take the stresses of carrier takeoff? A Ski-jump catapualt is a lot different then a steam catapault.

[Vympel]

And you aren't paying attention to what I am saying. I am stating the difficulties the Su-27K would be under. Did I state it would be better? Hell no. It could very well be that trying to get the Su-27K working on a US carrier makes it less effective in the role.

What, with a few extra kg of weight from airframe strengthening- if any is required at all (I'd remind you that the Ul'yanovsk CVN was to use catapults, and a combined Su-27K/MiG-29K wing was planned for that), it's magically going to have less range, less fuel, a smaller radar, less weapons hardpoints, a lower warload, less speed and less maneuverability than the Super Hornet? The above things I listed are all dictated by the airframe. The Flanker-D airframe is better than that of the Super Hornet. Period.

Did you know that US Naval aircraft have to be built heavier then normal to take the stresses of carrier takeoff? A Ski-jump catapualt is a lot different then a steam catapault.

It doesn't make a huge difference. The reasons the F/A-18E is inferior has everything to do with it's design and a few extra 100kg (if any) is not going to affect the performance disparity between the two airframes by any significant margin, and if you think it will, then you should some produce some numbers to justify it.

[Iceberg]

To replace the Super Hornet, the Su-27 would have to be redesigned with an American tailhook, reinforced landing gear, a catapult tow bar, reinforced nose structure to handle the stress of thousands of carrier launches, American engines, avionics, weapons... basically, it would require designing an entirely new, 100% American aircraft that just happens to LOOK like a Su-27.

What part of the "K" in Su-27K has escaped your notice, exactly?

Why do you get to edit your posts, Vymp?

The American tailhook/ catapult tow bar is not a big issue, and it would not require a major redesign of the structure whatsoever- just the black boxes. Which has already been done again and again, with mixing and matching of Israeli and French avionics, as well as repeated upgrades of the Russian ones over various models, in both test and service aircraft.

When the Russians develop a tactical fighter aircraft capable of catapult launch, let me know. Otherwise you're just speculating that the Su-27K won't need major structural upgrades in the nose and forward half of the fighter because Kuznetsov uses a skijump for takeoff, not a catapult.

Converting landplanes to work with a catapult takes A LOT of work. You can't just stick a carrier style nose gear on them because the strut will rip out of the airplane the first time it tries to launch.

For DoD to accept a Su-27K, the engines would have to be replaced, probably by F119s; the avionics would have to go and be replaced by American models, the ejection seat would be replaced with a Martin-Baker Mk. 14 or a Boeing ACES II, the canopy, whatever it's made of, would be replaced by Lexan, the weapons of course would go and be replaced by American weapons; in short there'd be nothing left of the Su-27K except some few of the structure (probably the mainwheels of the landing gear) and the general visible appearance - it would probably be MORE EXPENSIVE to purchase Su-27Ks than to build a completely new aircraft from the ground up.

[Iceberg]

What, with a few extra kg of weight from airframe strengthening- if any is required at all (I'd remind you that the Ul'yanovsk CVN was to use catapults, and a combined Su-27K/MiG-29K wing was planned for that), it's magically going to have less range, less fuel, a smaller radar, less weapons hardpoints, a lower warload, less speed and less maneuverability than the Super Hornet? The above things I listed are all dictated by the airframe. The Flanker-D airframe is better than that of the Super Hornet. Period.

Ul'yanovsk was going to use waist catapults to launch a proposed and never actually designed AWACS - the fighters would have launched over the bow from a ski jump just like on Kuznetsov.

[Howedar]

Converting landplanes to work with a catapult takes A LOT of work. You can't just stick a carrier style nose gear on them because the strut will rip out of the airplane the first time it tries to launch.

Congratulations, you're a retard. The land aircraft is already fucking converted. All you'd need is to majorly beef up the nose gear (although bearing in mind that this is a Soviet-era base design, the nose gear is not going to be that weak to begin with).

For DoD to accept a Su-27K, the engines would have to be replaced, probably by F119s; the avionics would have to go and be replaced by American models, the ejection seat would be replaced with a Martin-Baker Mk. 14 or a Boeing ACES II, the canopy, whatever it's made of, would be replaced by Lexan, the weapons of course would go and be replaced by American weapons; in short there'd be nothing left of the Su-27K except some few of the structure (probably the mainwheels of the landing gear) and the general visible appearance - it would probably be MORE EXPENSIVE to purchase Su-27Ks than to build a completely new aircraft from the ground up.

LOL!

So it'd be more expensive to change engines, ejection seat (fuck knows why we'd do that though), canopy material, and avionics than to build a completely new aircraft that has all of these changes and more?

[Iceberg]

Converting landplanes to work with a catapult takes A LOT of work. You can't just stick a carrier style nose gear on them because the strut will rip out of the airplane the first time it tries to launch.

Congratulations, you're a retard. The land aircraft is already fucking converted. All you'd need is to majorly beef up the nose gear (although bearing in mind that this is a Soviet-era base design, the nose gear is not going to be that weak to begin with).

For DoD to accept a Su-27K, the engines would have to be replaced, probably by F119s; the avionics would have to go and be replaced by American models, the ejection seat would be replaced with a Martin-Baker Mk. 14 or a Boeing ACES II, the canopy, whatever it's made of, would be replaced by Lexan, the weapons of course would go and be replaced by American weapons; in short there'd be nothing left of the Su-27K except some few of the structure (probably the mainwheels of the landing gear) and the general visible appearance - it would probably be MORE EXPENSIVE to purchase Su-27Ks than to build a completely new aircraft from the ground up.

LOL!

So it'd be more expensive to change engines, ejection seat (fuck knows why we'd do that though), canopy material, and avionics than to build a completely new aircraft that has all of these changes and more?

Small changes in a frozen design can result in HUGE costs as all that design work has to be undone and then redone.

Say ALL you want to do is replace the engines. It won't be, but let's just imagine. Then you have also to completely rearrange the structural members in and around the engine compartments because US engines attach to the airframe differently than Soviet engines and the access points for US engines are in different places than Soviet engines. In addition, you may or may not have to replace the fuel tanks, depending on how DOD regulations for fuel tanks compare to their Russian/Soviet counterparts, and install American electronics for controlling the engines.

From a "simple" substitution like that, you're basically building a quarter or more of the entire fighter from completely new plans.

[Howedar]

Ah, so that's why converting the F-15 and F-16 to the F-110 engine was such a huge task. Same for the F-14 going from the 1970s TF-30 to the late 1980s F-110.

Oh, wait.

[Vympel]

Why do you get to edit your posts, Vymp?

I said Su-27K at the start- that's not an edit, what are you talking about?

Converting landplanes to work with a catapult takes A LOT of work. You can't just stick a carrier style nose gear on them because the strut will rip out of the airplane the first time it tries to launch.

You strengthen the airframe/gear etc to take the stress, it's not a big deal- it's already been done on the Su-27/30/35 series more than once (increasing warload, I mean, which is related).

For DoD to accept a Su-27K, the engines would have to be replaced, probably by F119s; the avionics would have to go and be replaced by American models, the ejection seat would be replaced with a Martin-Baker Mk. 14 or a Boeing ACES II, the canopy, whatever it's made of, would be replaced by Lexan, the weapons of course would go and be replaced by American weapons; in short there'd be nothing left of the Su-27K except some few of the structure (probably the mainwheels of the landing gear) and the general visible appearance - it would probably be MORE EXPENSIVE to purchase Su-27Ks than to build a completely new aircraft from the ground up.

I've already said all this at the very start- but how it would be more expensive than the F/A-18E, I can't see how that's possible. Using an already navalized, carrier-capable airframe (with some adjustment required) with pre-existing production facilities will be cheaper than designing an all new aircraft, which is what the F/A-18E is. And frankly, even if it was more expensive, for the increase in capability you're getting (and a credible replacement for the F-14A/D in both strike and air superiority), it'd be worth it.

[Ma Deuce]

For DoD to accept a Su-27K, the engines would have to be replaced, probably by F119s

I'd love to see how an Su-33 would perform with F-119s fitted, considering they each generate 35,000lbs of thrust on Full Military Power (FMP for AL-31F is about 17,000lbs). Wheeeeeeeeee!! .

Even if the US wanted to adopt the Su-33, there is still one problem: Would Sukhoi ever grant a licence to a US company to produce the airframe in the States? Usually the allowance for production on US soil necessary for foreign-designed peice of equipment to be adopted by the US military (the reasons for this should be obvious)...

[Sea Skimmer]

What, with a few extra kg of weight from airframe strengthening- if any is required at all (I'd remind you that the Ul'yanovsk CVN was to use catapults, and a combined Su-27K/MiG-29K wing was planned for that)

Planning is great, however the Soviets never had a working steam catapult so there ability to test a design is rather limited.

[Vympel]

I'd love to see how an Su-33 would perform with F-119s fitted, considering they each generate 35,000lbs of thrust on Full Military Power (FMP for AL-31F is about 17,000lbs). Wheeeeeeeeee!! .

It'd be insane. Still, the next generation of engines for what will probably be the final Flanker development will produce ~31,000lb (the AL-41F1, a reduced size version of the 40,000lb AL-41F for the new Russian fighter- so it can fit in the Flanker engine bay). Or 140kN and 175kN respectively.

Even if the US wanted to adopt the Su-33, there is still one problem: Would Sukhoi ever grant a licence to a US company to produce the airframe in the States? Usually the allowance for production on US soil necessary for foreign-designed peice of equipment to be adopted by the US military (the reasons for this should be obvious)...

Russia has granted Su-27/30 production licenses to China, India, and offered one to Australia. As long as there's no export option (and really, there wouldn't be), they wouldn't care.

Planning is great, however the Soviets never had a working steam catapult so there ability to test a design is rather limited.

True, but they eventually would've had one. It's moot anyway, Iceberg reminded me the Ul'yanovsk still had ski-jump launch for the Su-27K/MiG-29K combo, the catapults were for the Yak-44 Hawkeyeskis.

[Iceberg]

Ah, so that's why converting the F-15 and F-16 to the F-110 engine was such a huge task. Same for the F-14 going from the 1970s TF-30 to the late 1980s F-110.

Oh, wait.

Apples to oranges. The F110 and F100 are both American engines, and as such are subject to DOD requirements in order to be compatible with American-built fighters. Even though the F110 and F100 are different engines, built by different manufacturers and designed in different decades; they're both designed to fit in the same group of aircraft. The original Soviet/Russian style engines are NOT. Don't be fucking dense, Howedar.

[Vympel]

I'd love to see how an Su-33 would perform with F-119s fitted, considering they each generate 35,000lbs of thrust on Full Military Power (FMP for AL-31F is about 17,000lbs). Wheeeeeeeeee!!

Oh, btw, 35,000lb thrust is for afterburner, not FMP- you didn't really think the F119s 156kN was FMP, did you?

AL-31F thrust at afterburner is 122.6kN (over 27,500lb)

Further note: the original, 175kN AL-41F seems to have had it's development energy put into the AL-41F1 development I talked about above, in light of the cancellation of the original Soviet "MFI" program (i.e. the MiG 1.44 prototype). A news article I just read indicated that the AL-41F1 is intended to produce anything from 14-16 tonnes force- the 140kN figure given by Jane's in it's MAKS 2003 report is probably an estimation, seeing as how 16 tonnes force is (surprise!) 156kN.

[Howedar]

Apples to oranges. The F110 and F100 are both American engines, and as such are subject to DOD requirements in order to be compatible with American-built fighters. Even though the F110 and F100 are different engines, built by different manufacturers and designed in different decades; they're both designed to fit in the same group of aircraft. The original Soviet/Russian style engines are NOT. Don't be fucking dense, Howedar.

Please provide evidence that the TF-30 installation was designed with the specifications of a then-undesigned engine in mind