More accurately, a proper trainer which an under powered, short and significantly inferior MK-1 (trainer) can't be.
Mk1 was deemed to be underpowered because it cannot carry enough payload at the right altitudes. The trainer version does not need similar performance.
Yes it has to be seen, if they are willing to compromise safety and tactical training in addition to restricting themselves to just another trainer in place of comparable and capable operational conversion trainer just for the sake of money or not?
I believe safety and training is not compromised by using the Mk1 as trainer.
You claimed KUBs don't have MMR which you have to prove by a source. As far as sentence which uses logic as source is concerned well i have already posed
MIG as source where it is written that KUB carriers 6 RVV-AE and this to me gives more reasons and good logic to believe KUBs carry MMR. Going by common sense even more.
If by chance I come across a source saying the KUB has no radar, then I will post it. It is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Yes they can but that doesn't prove KUB don't have RADAR. Look what BR has to say on this matter. BR is probably most reliable source when it comes Indian defense matters.
I have never seen the K or KUB, even head to head pictures, so personally I do not know if the noses are the same. If BR says it is so, then I don't have to disagree. Perhaps this version has the same nose. However, that does not mean things are the same inside.
You said this
"they can not use the carriers". You better interpret what it could stand for.
My bad. I wasn't clear. I was talking about the LCA trainers because you mention the same just before in the same post. I have seen videos of KUBs being used on Kuznetsov. Sometimes the meaning is lost in words rather than speech. Most of the times I do not proof read what I type.
I am also following Mig-21 crash reports since 2001, HUMAN ERROR most of the time is easy reference to Pilot Error. Yes we did not had HAWKs but IAF did had ISKRAs which was used as AJT for good length of time.
Mig-21 is a much more complex piece of hardware. Lack of fly by wire does not help. Suffice to say, the same will not be repeated on the LCA or IAF won't have learnt anything from past mistakes. You and I know IAF is a professional organization.
Yes my problem is, i can't believe on someone's statement which says; Mk-2 wont be significantly different from MK-1 despite Mk-2 being longer by half a meter, featuring much refined aerodynamics (that may include realignment of wings) in addition to significantly powerful engine.
Please check dimensions on the F-16. Significant changes made since Block 30 to block 52+ including engines, but all pilots say the handling is all pretty much the same. You can say the difference is as significant as the LCA Mk1 and Mk2 difference, if not more. I think an extra meter was added on 52+, along with enlarged wing. You don't see them saying the difference is significant. They still believe the performance parameters are not very different.
You need to see the XL, again they say the difference was not as vast as you claim even though the entire wing was changed.
Yes LCA is much easier to fly than Mig-21, may be Mig-21s during early days was too.
I don't know the specifics, but Mig-21 wasn't easy to fly even during those times. Heck, Mig-29 is easier and we have western pilots complain about the Mig-29A being a b!tch to fly. Let's give some credit to our pilots.
Now the difference between a Mig-29A and Mig-29K would be significant because fly by wire is added on K.
I don't know how much better Mig-29 is but being twin engine fighter apart from being significantly large it will always need more space than single engine LCA. And LCA is not to compete with Mig-29Ks, instead it is to supplement it more likely in air defense role.
Both aircraft are pretty much oriented in the air superiority role. It was different if LCA was more like JF-17 which fits quite well for strike missions. I don't see how placing a Mig-21 type fighter with a Mig-29 will supplement it. No! As the Admiral said, the only reason LCA is being inducted is because "it is our own fighter."
BTW how you know LCA is only 150 KM fighter when we have only one prototype (NP-1) flying which has logged only maiden flight so far? And also the fact that NP-1/ NLCA MK-1 is just TD and is supposed to be significantly inferior to one (NLCA MK-2) which is proposed for carrier duties.
It is not significantly different from Gripen. N-LCA is bound to have lesser payload and perhaps lesser fuel capacity than the air force version. It is a given. At best, LCA carries 2.5 tons of fuel, say 3tons with Mk2. A 100KN engine will burn that quickly once it takes off. So, for the fuel load, and on station time of 30 minutes, it can at best move to a distance of 150Km and stay there. Placing drop tanks would mean carrying only 2+2 AAMs with greater loiter time and reduced payload.
Comparatively, Mig-29K carries 4.6 tons of fuel, has 3 wet stations and 13 hardpoints(or 9 depending on config) which allows greater flexibility in carrying air to air weapons. Unlike the LCA, the Mig-29 is a high drag aircraft, so it can carry more weapons(say 6+2 AAMs) even with 1 drop tank without significant drop in performance as compared to LCA with drop tanks and 4 AAMs.
So what was the point is saying following?
You stated more LCAs are better by replacing the Mig-29s. I said the ship won't have the space to carry the extra crew apart from the fact that the LCA itself is a less capable aircraft. Space is a major problem on carriers. Honestly, the LCA is a glorified Mig-21, like the Mirage-2000. It is merely 4th gen as compared to the Mig-21s older technology base.
Dedicated training instructors has nothing to do with the above. From what I know, the 6 Mk2s that the Navy has ordered, the navy is leaning towards more twin seats. Neither the Navy nor ADA are sure whether they should pick a single seat NP-2 as the fighter version or the twin seat NP-1 as the fighter version. I think the Navy is currently in favour of a twin seat LCA as it's fighter while going for a less capable twin seat Mk1 as the trainer. A little birdie told me so, about the twin seat thing. A larger number of twin seat Mk2s is guaranteed for IN. AFAIR, even a French Admiral was cribbing about not having ordered more twin seat Rafale-Ns while already leaning more towards twin seats.
