why is the su-33 so sexy and why is russia switching over to

>>34048873
Dunno. Mig 29s are much smaller tho. Maybe to increase number of planes on deck?

>why is russia switching over to the mig-29 for carriers?
>for carriers?
>carriers

Have they started counting CGI ships as part of the fleet? When did the Kuznetsov get a brother?

The better question is:

>Ramp

I'm more of a SU-32 kinda guy.

T H I C C

>>34048973

This.

It's size.

The smaller airframes are easier to deny losing when they crash into the sea.

File: Mikoyan_MiG-29K_of_the_Indian_Navy.jpg (242KB, 1500x1068px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1500x1068px

>>34048873
>why is russia switching over to the mig-29 for carriers?
Two reasons. The first is that MiG-29s are smaller and better suited for carrier operations, as they were designed from the start with more rough-field operations in mind. That means that a navalized MiG-29 would allow the carrier to carry more planes, launch them more easily, and (probably) fly the aircraft closer to their MTOW.

There's also the issue of modernization. Sukhoi kind of just forgot about the Su-33 once they won the competition back in the '80s, and there really haven't been any updates to the design since. MiG, on the other hand, kept the MiG-29K design updated over time, applying things from other Fulcrum variants like the updated cockpits, avionics, and expanded fuel capacity.

So while the current MiG-29K is pretty much an entirely new aircraft from the one that lost out to the Su-33 in the '80s, the Su-33 is pretty much the same plane as before.

Why does Russia even bother with carriers anymore. They'll never win.

Do they plan to use them as mobile smokescreen factories?

Smaller planes means more on deck and also less fuel consumed per flight.
Admiral Kuznetsov had to dismount her Su-33s to a land base and the ship had to return to port because she ran out of fuel for her aircraft.

>>34049906
>Admiral Kuznetsov had to dismount her Su-33s to a land base and the ship had to return to port because she ran out of fuel for her aircraft.

woah... the power of the Russian Federation...

>>34049862
They're also much cheaper. And guessing by the military budget cuts, is likely a strong motivating factor.

File: slavcano.jpg (63KB, 1200x848px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1200x848px

>>34050568
this desu

>>34049906
Su-33s are garbage for STOBAR configuration. Either catapults or stay on land for aircraft that size.

>>34048873
>talks about Su-33 and the Russians
>post fucking J-15 on the Liaoning's flight deck

>>34048873
they have only one carrier and it's a shit

>>34049906
>>34050553
Well, that and they kept crashing.

>>34048873
Su33 is more expensive desu.

also, india pretty much paid for the mig29k assembly line

>>34049880
>Why does Russia even bother with carriers anymore. They'll never win.
Win at what, having the best carrier? That's never been their aim. Russian military doctrine is very different than the US or NATO

>>34050553

>ran out of fuel

Not shocked. They don't have a blue water navy. People need to realise the difference between why Russia has an aircraft carrier and why the US/UK has them.

Russia is running their shit from back in Russia and has sanctions and preventative trading laws to avoid Italy/Greece selling shit to them so they can operate in that region and there's no chance of them getting jet fuel from the Saudis or UAE with the way the US has been riding their cocks.

>>34050818

Pretty much this.

Su-33s shouldn't be carrier bound. That was what the Mig-29 was designed to do but hey ho, USSR procurement.

Could have had both platforms and has Su-33 for strike and air superiority over land and Mig-29s for naval operations.

It'd be like trying to launch Strike Eagles from Nimitz. It's possible but it just leads to bad shit due to the airframe stress.

>>34053207
The reason they're having such difficulty keeping Kuznetsov supplied is that the carrier was designed to work in the North Sea and arctic to keep NATO ASW aircraft away, its now being used similar to how the west uses its own carriers and now logistics are a total mess.

>>34053256

or it's the fact that they lack a blue water navy while also simultaneously blocked from trading potential military assets with NATO backed nation.

They just lack refueling and resupply vessels like the UK and US have so they have to resupply via ports and they have no major allies in the region that aren't directly at war and capable of their own supply production.

If it wasn't for the whole NATO thing, they could resupply in Europe but Italy and Greece aren't allowed to sell them shit that could potentially be used against NATO forces.

>>34048873
So, you didn't post SU33s anon, you complete fucking retard.

>>34048873
>why is the su-33 so sexy

Because you have shit taste

>why is russia switching over to the mig-29 for carriers?

Cheaper.