Our Mig-29s don't have a carrier either. The Link is yet to be operational and will take time. I am not talking about the Russian links. DRDO is developing new data links for the Navy and they will keep the air assets and AEW equipment connected to the ships radar.
By the time that happens, Rafale will be flying off Indian carriers.
Ship EW protects it's entire area of operation by saturating the air with it's own signals. Only the ships own aircraft can operate in that environment with other ships. Hostile and unrecognized signals, including civilian cell phone signals are nullified immediately. This gives the Mig-29 a Home Field advantage when it is in the vicinity of the carrier.
Ship EW is for jamming incoming ASMs, it has nothing to do with jamming incoming aircraft or their AAMs. There is no such thing as a dedicated stand-off EW ship, although it is an interesting concept.
A couple hundred Kms matter a lot. France does not operate its carrier and fighters in major threat environments. Indian MKIs operate more than 1500Kms and that too for 10 hours at a stretch. They are also constantly flying in areas which are high threat regions. When using supersonic fighters there is a certain number you need flying in the air and a certain number on the ground. You are giving unnecessary reasons on why Gorky or IAC-1 are useless for us.
India don't operate in any threat environments, she isn't at war. She hasn't projected air power beyond her borders in 30 years. France is in three wars with mobile SAMs in two and the Arab world's second highest rated IADs. Initial recon and strikes in Libya were carried out from St. Dizier which is a 2200km sortie over an IADs yet to be hit with 50 upgraded Dvina and Pechora SAM sites. Rafale flew all over Libya like it wasn't even there. Now, when MKI goes flying into Chinese IADs protected air space, you can tell us how "major threat" the environment is, but I would advise against it after the results of Red Flag when MKI was shot down "every time" by the same stuff Rafale handles with ease over Libya.
Who needs Gorky when you are better off buying a couple tankers at 1/10th the price? Get some catapults, then we can talk about how useful it is.
As for Gorky's supposed sortie generation rate, we don't even have the carrier and you have somehow deduced the number of sorties Gorky can generate.
We know the design... A) she can't recover aircraft when launching, B) she can only launch one aircraft at a time, C) she only has one elevator rated for loaded fighters and D) only carries one fighter squadron. All that points to low sortie generation.
No it's not ONLY air superiority, Mig-29s can do anti-shipping as well as decent air interdiction. It's enough for power projection. A Mig-29 with 2 LGBs and 2 Drop tanks are more than enough as a major threat even when conducting SEADs with other aircraft.
Can a MiG-29K get off the deck with two 1500l drop tanks and two 560kg KAB-500 LGBs? Thats 3000kg in tanks + 1120kg in bombs + 200kg for the laser designator pod. Grand total is 4320kg in external ordinance, not to mention the fact the MiG-29K has increased internal fuel capacity which is going to weigh it down another 950kg. You are already at 5270kg which is 1270kg more max payload an original MiG-29 could carry from a LAND base! You roll that off Gorky and you have your next artificial reef. Now, getting back to reality... an Su-33 flies with a half full tank with less than 1000kg in external payload. Giving the MiG-29K a full tank and 1000kg in external ordinance is more realistic. What you do with that is not going to be effective unless it is in an A2A roll.
If 2 Carriers are part of the CBG, we have effectively 2-3 squadrons of Mig-29s in one spot. That's pretty much an entire land airbase.
It would be two squadrons which is what CdG fields off one deck and two catapults. Going with ski-jumps makes the payloads so low, it is still just a CAP air defence ship whether you have one or two.
With 6 AASMs, 4 Micas and 2 drop tanks the Rafale is much heavier and has a T/W of 0.8 to 0.85. At Rafale's loaded weight of 14.5 tons it has a T/W of 0.97. At Mig-29s loaded weight of 18.5 tons it has a T/W of 0.99. The main advantage of Rafale isn't it's T/W ratio which is lesser than Mig-29, but it is it's capabilities in lower altitude which is quite superior to the Mig-29.
You are comparing two wrong launch methods. Rafale uses catapults which can launch a station wagon three miles. She also has a higher wing load, less body weight and faster throttle power which makes all the difference. You will find Rafale beats MiG-29K and SMT in T/W in all flight regimes...
Also you are comparing 2 wrong aircraft. Su-33 is a heavy class aircraft and has a T/W of 0.8 when at loaded weight. With just 50% fuel load and just 1 ton of missiles, it is still a very scary aircraft compared to Mig-29 and Rafale.
Not really, look at the table above and you will so Su-30 series have similar T/W ratios as modern MiG-29s even with both at a half tank. Give MiG-29K a full tank and it isn't even up to it.
But, yeah. Air superiority is all they are built for. Mig-29k is a better option for us because our carrier is smaller than the Kuznetsov.
Yeah, it was called Air Defence Ship for a reason, not Carrier Strike Ship like US and French CSGs.
Agreed. But it works only on ships within range. For ships beyond the range of ship board weapons, the Mig-29 can do the honours.
With 300km range, Brahmos can take care of it. MiG-29 won't be doing many honours until it gets a catapult.
I have not denied this in any of my posts and have actually supported your view.
Yet you still think MiG-29K is going to be carrying A2G ordinance and fuel tanks... apparently you have not gotten it yet which is why I am still responding.
This deal will also be quite big, minimum 72 aircraft(36 for each carrier).
