In the late 1980s, the then-USSR produced two prototypes for carrier-capable fighter aircraft. One was from Mikoyan, the MiG-29K-9.31, and the other from Sukhoi, the Su-27K.
The latter was one of the T-10K-series aircraft developed for the carrier program.
Both prototypes made successful landings or “trap” aboard the lone Soviet carrier that could operate STOBAR aircraft from its flight deck, the Admiral Kuznetsov.
The Soviet Navy (VMF) evaluated both designs and, in the end, selected the Sukhoi design, partly because, as a larger aircraft, it had a better range and could carry more weaponry than the smaller MiG.
The Sukhoi variant was also closer in its mission profile to the requirement for the carrier aircraft requirement.
Soviet war planners had decided they did not need an aircraft carrier to be part of a power-projection mission to support a task force with an amphibious landing contingent.
Instead, what was required was a kind of “floating interceptor aerodrome” to extend the nation’s air defense network.
When Russia selected the Su-27K after a series of carrier flight trials, the requirement for a series-produced design that incorporated all the lessons learned during the testing phase, the Su-33 was born.
The Su-33 Fighter, Explained
Adapting an airplane initially designed to be operated on land into a carrier-capable aircraft is far more complicated than it would seem to the casual observer.
It involves more than adding a tail hook for arrested landings and putting in a wing fold to accommodate storing the aircraft in the below-deck hangar.
The most complicated aspect of this process is altering the structural configuration of the aircraft to address the impact on the airframe when it slams into the carrier flight deck.
These “load paths” are distributed so the aircraft can absorb the shock of landing without damaging the aircraft or the onboard systems fitted internally.
Modifications in the case of the Su-33 were accomplished by validating an entirely new design on a structural test stand at the Chaplygin Siberian Aeronautical Research Institute (SibNIA) in Novosibirsk.
Sukhoi made many changes from the original Su-27 layout that the lead designer on the Su-27K/33 project, Konstantin Marbashev, once said the only part that was “identical on both aircraft were the handrests on the pilot’s seat.”
Configuration Changes
Other modifications accommodated carrier operations. One was the large IR Search and Tracking (IRST) module set centerline in front of the pilot on the Su-27, which was offset to one side for better over-the-nose visibility on landing.
Another was that a set of moveable canard foreplanes linked to the flight control system were added to permit slower approach speeds when lining up for a landing at sea.
By the early 2000s, the aircraft’s onboard systems were outdated, and the Su-33 fleet required a complete modernization in order to make it more survivable against modern combat platforms and to extend the ranges at which it could release weaponry.
In discussions in 2002 with officials from the Komsomolsk-na-Amure Aviation Production Plant, where the Su-33s were all originally manufactured, the design team stated they had devised an upgrade package for the aircraft.
What was envisioned at the time was “a modified version of the onboard systems that had been developed for the more advanced Su-30MK, so it would be the ‘face’ of the Su-33, but a completely different inside,” he said at the time.
What emerged eventually was that the upgrade for the Su-33 would be prohibitively expensive due to the need to amortize the non-recurring engineering (NRE) costs for developing the upgrade across a very small fleet of only 19 aircraft.
The Russian Navy decided in 2009 to replace most of the Su-33 fleet with A new MiG-29K variant (with a design bureau designation of 9.41 instead of the 9.31 of the original 1980s carrier “K” model) that had already been developed for the Indian Navy.
By “piggybacking” on the production line for the Indian order, the Navy could enjoy some substantial savings and enjoy the benefits of the newer aircraft’s radar set that was developed at Phazotron by Senior Designer Yuri Guskov.
The era of the Su-33 largely came to an end with this development.
About the Author: Reuben F. Johnson
Reuben F. Johnson is a survivor of the February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and is now an Expert on Foreign Military Affairs with the Fundacja im. Kazimierza Pułaskiego in Warsaw and has been a consultant to the Pentagon, several NATO governments and the Australian government in the fields of defence technology and weapon systems design. Over the past 30 years he has resided in and reported from Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Brazil, the People’s Republic of China and Australia.
