INS Vikramaditya (Adm Gorshkov) aircraft carrier

[p2prada]

By the time that happens, Rafale will be flying off Indian carriers.

2012 is Gorkys time and 2014 is IAC-1's time. Both will be operational even before the first MRCA squadron comes to India.

CATOBAR ACs will come online only after 2017.

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.

I am not talking about saturating the air in a particular location away from the fleet, that is stand off jamming. I am talking about saturating the air around the fleet itself, and that is in a 200-300Km radius where the Mig-29 would operate.

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.

India does not need to project beyond her borders. All our enemies are next to us. We are always operating in high threat environments. Heck PN even lost their Atlantique because of the proximity. The environment Rafale has operated in are all third world countries without any kind of air power and with technology that even Russia has phased out.

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.

In Red Flag we were flying passenger aircraft. No radar, no EW equipment, no chaffs, no flares and only voice intercepts from AWACS who had issues comprehending the accent. With a 95% sortie rate and a 100% mission compliance in that situation is worthy of praise in any air force. Shooting down passenger aircraft using SAMs isn't a big deal.

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.

An airbase in the water cannot be compared to a land airbase. You see, one of them is fixed in it's position.

You underestimate PAF. We cannot keep running in circles over a port. We need ships for blockade and Gorky is the best for it.

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.

We need only 4 aircraft at a time over Karachi.

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.

Not 1500l, but with 2 800l drop tanks and 50% internal fuel, yeah. Mig-29k can take off Gorky with 2 LGBs. The Su-33 is limited by it's take off run. It's not enough. The Mig-29 with half it's weight can handle it better.

2 800l + 2 LGB + Pod + 50% Fuel will keep the Mig-29K at a T/W ratio of greater than 1.

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.

CDG is a much bigger ship. Only IAC-2 can be compared to it. Gorky and IAC-1 are CAP air defence ships and no one has denied it. But you are cutting off the Mig-29ks entire capabilities because of this misconception that STOBAR cannot be used to carry weapons load. Heck even Sea Hawks have done bombing missions during 1971 followed by Sea Harriers during peace times since 1982.

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...

Rafale's always takes off with drop tanks and at 50-75% internal fuel load. That's why I said Mig-29 will have a superior T/W. I also gave credit to Rafale saying it is the better aircraft and that Catapults enhance it even more.

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.

No Carrier borne aircraft takes off at full load. It's either 50-75% fuel load or jettisonable drop tanks. This helps preserve fuel in case the aircraft has to do an emergency landing.

Yeah, it was called Air Defence Ship for a reason, not Carrier Strike Ship like US and French CSGs.

Earlier it was called aircraft carrier. IAF and IA objected to the designation due to budgetry reasons. Calling our carriers air defence ships would mean a smaller budget and IAF and IA agreed to IN having more carriers only after IN changed the designation. It's just inter-service rivalry. Even if IAC-2 flies Rafale and has superior capability to CDG, we will still call it Air defence ships.

With 300km range, Brahmos can take care of it. MiG-29 won't be doing many honours until it gets a catapult.

Mig-29 can fly with the KH-31s as well as KH-35s. They are both as heavy as the KAB-500s.

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.

Hmpf... Ok. Mig-29k can only carry 2 R-77 and 2 R-73s. Isn't that what you wanted? Apparently the KAB-500, KH-31 ARMs, ASMs, drop tanks etc are all for show only. They bought it to decorate the flight deck. Perhaps they will launch them during Diwali.

 

[Armand2REP]

2012 is Gorkys time and 2014 is IAC-1's time. Both will be operational even before the first MRCA squadron comes to India.

CATOBAR ACs will come online only after 2017.

And you think an indigenous data-link will be available for MiG-29K and the rest of the IAF by 2017? Remember we are talking about dr.dodo.

I am not talking about saturating the air in a particular location away from the fleet, that is stand off jamming. I am talking about saturating the air around the fleet itself, and that is in a 200-300Km radius where the Mig-29 would operate.

200-300km is stand-off jamming, ship EW is much more limited, like its own vicinity.

India does not need to project beyond her borders. All our enemies are next to us. We are always operating in high threat environments. Heck PN even lost their Atlantique because of the proximity. The environment Rafale has operated in are all third world countries without any kind of air power and with technology that even Russia has phased out.

High threat environments like your own airspace? Oh yeah, real high threat. PN lost their plane because they crossed the border into India. The third world countries Rafale operates in have far better air defences than the third world countries IAF operates in. India uses technology even Russia has phased out, it is the bulk of the IAF.

In Red Flag we were flying passenger aircraft. No radar, no EW equipment, no chaffs, no flares and only voice intercepts from AWACS who had issues comprehending the accent. With a 95% sortie rate and a 100% mission compliance in that situation is worthy of praise in any air force. Shooting down passenger aircraft using SAMs isn't a big deal.

BVR was cut off for everybody so training mode on a powerful Bars had plenty to track. The RWR was on just like everyone else. Flares don't make a bit of difference in a simulated missile and everyone plays by the same rules. Indian pilots already speak English so that is little excuse.

An airbase in the water cannot be compared to a land airbase. You see, one of them is fixed in it's position.

You underestimate PAF. We cannot keep running in circles over a port. We need ships for blockade and Gorky is the best for it.

They do the same thing and if your mission is to patrol the airspace over Pakistan's ports, an airbase will do just fine. Tanker's aren't even needed for that mission but can keep them on station far longer.

We need only 4 aircraft at a time over Karachi.

Then use an airbase....

Not 1500l, but with 2 800l drop tanks and 50% internal fuel, yeah. Mig-29k can take off Gorky with 2 LGBs. The Su-33 is limited by it's take off run. It's not enough. The Mig-29 with half it's weight can handle it better.

2 800l + 2 LGB + Pod + 50% Fuel will keep the Mig-29K at a T/W ratio of greater than 1.

Why would MiG-29K run with two drop tanks and only have 50% internal fuel? It has no buddy tanker to top it off. No, MiG-29K running with half the weight of Su-33 doesn't mean jack when they have far more powerful engines, wing area, and canards. MiG-29K T/W with that much ordinance is more like .5 and will end up as the next artificial reef... plop.

CDG is a much bigger ship. Only IAC-2 can be compared to it. Gorky and IAC-1 are CAP air defence ships and no one has denied it. But you are cutting off the Mig-29ks entire capabilities because of this misconception that STOBAR cannot be used to carry weapons load. Heck even Sea Hawks have done bombing missions during 1971 followed by Sea Harriers during peace times since 1982.

CdG is smaller than Gorshkov. Harriers are VTOL, much lighter and can point their thrust much more efficiently on a ski jump. Even with all that, they only carry around 1500kg.

Rafale's always takes off with drop tanks and at 50-75% internal fuel load. That's why I said Mig-29 will have a superior T/W. I also gave credit to Rafale saying it is the better aircraft and that Catapults enhance it even more.

Rafale has buddy refueling pods so they can top off later. MiG-29 with no catapult would fall into the sea.

No Carrier borne aircraft takes off at full load. It's either 50-75% fuel load or jettisonable drop tanks. This helps preserve fuel in case the aircraft has to do an emergency landing.

What does that have to do with T/W... Rafale beats all MiG-29s in any configuration.

Earlier it was called aircraft carrier. IAF and IA objected to the designation due to budgetry reasons. Calling our carriers air defence ships would mean a smaller budget and IAF and IA agreed to IN having more carriers only after IN changed the designation. It's just inter-service rivalry. Even if IAC-2 flies Rafale and has superior capability to CDG, we will still call it Air defence ships.

If it gets catapults, then it will be called carrier. It is only good now for air defence.

Mig-29 can fly with the KH-31s as well as KH-35s. They are both as heavy as the KAB-500s.

They are slightly heavier than KAB-500s, but they can take off with a couple, but then it requires a targeting pod for the ARM version which is another 200kg. Forget about carrying any A2A so they have to throw up another fighter, and several more bombers and fighters to get enough for a saturation attack. The amount of aircraft required to form a strike group is absurd.

Hmpf... Ok. Mig-29k can only carry 2 R-77 and 2 R-73s. Isn't that what you wanted? Apparently the KAB-500, KH-31 ARMs, ASMs, drop tanks etc are all for show only. They bought it to decorate the flight deck. Perhaps they will launch them during Diwali.

They already bought them long before the carriers. They are launched from LAND based aircraft.

 

[p2prada]

And you think an indigenous data-link will be available for MiG-29K and the rest of the IAF by 2017? Remember we are talking about dr.dodo.

Already done.

http://www.bel-india.com/index.aspx?q=&sectionid=217

This has been delivered to Boeing for integration on the P-8I Poseidon.

It is being installed on other airborne assets as we speak.

200-300km is stand-off jamming, ship EW is much more limited, like its own vicinity.

Funny. When aircraft can do it with just 8-35KW of jamming power, a ship with 600KW cannot. A ship's own vicinity is 200-300Km.

http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3133

http://www.india-defence.com/reports-2713

High threat environments like your own airspace? Oh yeah, real high threat. PN lost their plane because they crossed the border into India. The third world countries Rafale operates in have far better air defences than the third world countries IAF operates in. India uses technology even Russia has phased out, it is the bulk of the IAF.

You missed PLAAF. They have the new S-300 variants on our border.

PN already operates new long range TPS radars they purchased from the US which deliver 3MW of power and so does PLAAF with their home made radars based on the S-300PMU2. Rafale has never operated in an environment since Gulf War I that is even close to where IAF has been operating in recent years.

Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq aren't what I would call awesome.

BVR was cut off for everybody so training mode on a powerful Bars had plenty to track. The RWR was on just like everyone else. Flares don't make a bit of difference in a simulated missile and everyone plays by the same rules. Indian pilots already speak English so that is little excuse.

BVR wasn't cut off for anybody. Even MKIs took BVR shots. RWR is not enough to beat SAMs, you need chaffs and flares or EW equipment. NATO pilots played by their own rules. EW, Chaffs and Flares were allowed for all NATO aircraft. Also, NATO air force enjoyed a high situational awareness with the use of their IFFs. MKIs were not allowed to do much except show up to the exercise. With a big RCS, the MKIs cannot survive without EW and chaff.

They do the same thing and if your mission is to patrol the airspace over Pakistan's ports, an airbase will do just fine. Tanker's aren't even needed for that mission but can keep them on station far longer.

Then use an airbase....

And what if PAF counter attacks? This isn't Libya we are talking about. Even their F-7s are a threat.

Why would MiG-29K run with two drop tanks and only have 50% internal fuel? It has no buddy tanker to top it off. No, MiG-29K running with half the weight of Su-33 doesn't mean jack when they have far more powerful engines, wing area, and canards. MiG-29K T/W with that much ordinance is more like .5 and will end up as the next artificial reef... plop.

Huh! Then you obviously have no clue about carrier operations. Drop tanks can be jettisoned quickly if needed and the aircraft can get into engagements with reasonable amounts of fuel to engage in dog fights. There is no real reason why aircraft should take off with 100% fuel anyway.

Su-33 does not have as much power as Mig-29k if you break it down to percentages and that is a given. As I already told you before, a Su-33 has a T/W ratio of only 0.8 when the Mig-29k is configured for the same mission with a T/W ratio of 0.99. Even the Russians are moving towards Mig-29k due to it's payload carrying capacity.

CdG is smaller than Gorshkov. Harriers are VTOL, much lighter and can point their thrust much more efficiently on a ski jump. Even with all that, they only carry around 1500kg.

1500Kg at 100% fuel is only statistics. But they operate with 50% fuel for much higher payload capability.

The current IN sea harriers can operate with 2 drop tanks and 4 Derbys or 2 Drop tanks and 2 Sea Eagle ASMs with no issues. With 2 sea eagles and 2 drop tanks the payload is over 2500Kg.

Rafale has buddy refueling pods so they can top off later. MiG-29 with no catapult would fall into the sea.

Mig-29k can buddy refuel too.

What does that have to do with T/W... Rafale beats all MiG-29s in any configuration.

I don't deny it. But Mig-29s not gonna fall off if you attach 2 drop tanks to it along with 2 ARMs.

They are slightly heavier than KAB-500s, but they can take off with a couple, but then it requires a targeting pod for the ARM version which is another 200kg. Forget about carrying any A2A so they have to throw up another fighter, and several more bombers and fighters to get enough for a saturation attack. The amount of aircraft required to form a strike group is absurd.

ARM version of KH-31 does not need targeting pods. Don't be absurd, only LGBs use pods.
The rest of what you said makes no sense. A squadron of Mig-29ks are good enough for saturation attacks.

Once IAC-1 comes into the picture with 2 squadrons on board, it's capability will obviously improve.

They already bought them long before the carriers. They are launched from LAND based aircraft.

As of today, IN operates only 4 Mig-29ks. The so called drop tanks and Cruise Missiles were bought only for carrier operations which were actually set to begin in 2008 when Gorky was supposed to be inducted.

IN has a total requirement for 16 Mig-29K and KUBs for Gorky and another 29 for IAC-1. Nothing will be land based except for 1 or 2 trainer requirements, tests and maintenance. All Mig-29ks ordered are meant for Carrier operations.

You completely underestimate the Mig-29k and it's upgraded engine.

 

[Armand2REP]

Already done.

http://www.bel-india.com/index.aspx?q=&sectionid=217

This has been delivered to Boeing for integration on the P-8I Poseidon.

It is being installed on other airborne assets as we speak.

Dead-link... you are talking about DL II from BEL I am sure. That is only for maritime patrol assets to link up to warships at this time. None of the MiG-29Ks received or ordered has the requirement for DL II integration. Probably because its current capabilities are only ASW and OTH ship targeting. Since it is BEL and not dr.dodo it might come quick for a spectrum wide data link... but it won't be in MiG-29K before 2017.

Funny. When aircraft can do it with just 8-35KW of jamming power, a ship with 600KW cannot. A ship's own vicinity is 200-300Km.

http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3133
http://www.india-defence.com/reports-2713

Everything you list is self protection EW... "The systems employ modular approach facilitating deployment on a variety of platforms viz. helicopters, vehicles, small ships etc. Certain specific platforms apart from ESM also have ECM capabilities."

You missed PLAAF. They have the new S-300 variants on our border.

They don't cover the border... they defend cities and bases well inside the country, mostly on the coast.

PN already operates new long range TPS radars they purchased from the US which deliver 3MW of power and so does PLAAF with their home made radars based on the S-300PMU2. Rafale has never operated in an environment since Gulf War I that is even close to where IAF has been operating in recent years.

Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq aren't what I would call awesome.

IAF flies over friendly Indian skies and international waters... so much threat. lol Rafale didn't exist in GWI, we flew Jaguars and M2000s. No losses I might add, although the Jags got torn up by AAA. What ALA flies over in Iraq, Serbia, and Libya is more threat than IAF has ever flown over.

And what if PAF counter attacks? This isn't Libya we are talking about. Even their F-7s are a threat.

It is far easier for them to put a carrier out of commission than the three major air bases within easy reach of Karachi.

Huh! Then you obviously have no clue about carrier operations. Drop tanks can be jettisoned quickly if needed and the aircraft can get into engagements with reasonable amounts of fuel to engage in dog fights. There is no real reason why aircraft should take off with 100% fuel anyway.

You obviously have no clue regarding operations for light carriers. A) you have no catapults, B) you have no buddy refueling, and C) you have very limited payload allowance. Joint Force Harriers during the Falklands took off with a full tank, two drop tanks and AIM-9s for a MiG-CAP which is the only endurance mission they could carryout. With the loss of MPA, there was no refueling aircraft to top them off. You fly with 100% fuel when you need an endurance mission and do not have a cow to fill your tanks. For a ski-jump boat, that will always be a CAP mission.

Su-33 does not have as much power as Mig-29k if you break it down to percentages and that is a given. As I already told you before, a Su-33 has a T/W ratio of only 0.8 when the Mig-29k is configured for the same mission with a T/W ratio of 0.99. Even the Russians are moving towards Mig-29k due to it's payload carrying capacity.

I already listed the T/W a Flanker has compared to a modernised MiG-29, it is only slightly less and with canards will get a boost. At 50% fuel and dry thrust is .65 for an Su-30 and .70 for a MiG-29K. That is with no armament. Tack on some ordinance and that drops real quick. Start loading it beyond the traditional A2A loadout and it will never get off the water.

The decision by Russia to purchase MiG-29K was financial and industrial in nature. Su-33 production had stopped with the fall of the USSR and starting up that line again would be expensive. The Indian order for MiG-29Ks meant Russia already had a line going for carrier aircraft and it is cheaper to go with a production aircraft. The biggest reason, Sokol is on the verge of bankruptcy and needed orders bad.

1500Kg at 100% fuel is only statistics. But they operate with 50% fuel for much higher payload capability.

You know how far a Harrier can fly on 50% fuel and a full payload? The edge of the horizon and back. Without a tanker to top it off, it won't do that.

It is flying with a full tank just like RAF Harriers. Clearly a CAP mission.

The current IN sea harriers can operate with 2 drop tanks and 4 Derbys or 2 Drop tanks and 2 Sea Eagle ASMs with no issues. With 2 sea eagles and 2 drop tanks the payload is over 2500Kg.

No they can't... the two outer pylons on Sea Harriers are rated light. The Sea Eagles would be carried on the two pylons rated for drop tanks. The biggest thing the outer pylons can carry are ALARMs which are 260kg. You would have a hard time loading two Derbys on that station which is why there is only one Derby and one Python in that picture.

Mig-29k can buddy refuel too.

Not... the UPAZ buddy pod is over 3000kg. It will never get off the deck.

I don't deny it. But Mig-29s not gonna fall off if you attach 2 drop tanks to it along with 2 ARMs.

Two drop tanks = 3000kg + 1200kg + 200kg for the special pod required by Russian ARMs... you are already approaching the max loadout of the aircraft taking off from a full stretch runway. It is a dream without a catapult.

ARM version of KH-31 does not need targeting pods. Don't be absurd, only LGBs use pods.

Kh-31P requires a Progress control pod.

The rest of what you said makes no sense. A squadron of Mig-29ks are good enough for saturation attacks.

Not when they can't carry enough rounds to saturate the target.

Once IAC-1 comes into the picture with 2 squadrons on board, it's capability will obviously improve.

This thread isn't about IAC-1, it is about the rust bucket Gorshkov. If you are still using ski-jumps, don't expect it to improve much.

As of today, IN operates only 4 Mig-29ks. The so called drop tanks and Cruise Missiles were bought only for carrier operations which were actually set to begin in 2008 when Gorky was supposed to be inducted.

The Kh-31A/Ps were purchased in the 90s... so much for that theory.

IN has a total requirement for 16 Mig-29K and KUBs for Gorky and another 29 for IAC-1. Nothing will be land based except for 1 or 2 trainer requirements, tests and maintenance. All Mig-29ks ordered are meant for Carrier operations.

Kind of hard to meet that requirement when 12 of those 45 ordered are trainers.

You completely underestimate the Mig-29k and it's upgraded engine.

Sure.. that is why MiG-35's engines "proved weak" in IAF trials. UAC lied about RD-33MK TBO hours and it always turns out Russian engines are rated higher than actuality.

 

[p2prada]

Dead-link... you are talking about DL II from BEL I am sure. That is only for maritime patrol assets to link up to warships at this time. None of the MiG-29Ks received or ordered has the requirement for DL II integration. Probably because its current capabilities are only ASW and OTH ship targeting. Since it is BEL and not dr.dodo it might come quick for a spectrum wide data link... but it won't be in MiG-29K before 2017.

The link works fine for me. Dunno why?

It's not just maritime patrol assets with Link II. The Link II has been made for all Naval air assets. It's not been advertised only because we don't have enough Mig-29ks as of now. Once Gorky comes on line we will have official confirmation.

Everything you list is self protection EW... "The systems employ modular approach facilitating deployment on a variety of platforms viz. helicopters, vehicles, small ships etc. Certain specific platforms apart from ESM also have ECM capabilities."

Dude. All are self protection EW, but they work in a radius of 200-300Km standard operating ranges. Sangraha and Samyukta systems are quite similar.

The Ellora system can jam from HF to MMW bands. That makes it a full fledged EW system.

They don't cover the border... they defend cities and bases well inside the country, mostly on the coast.

It is a standard part of their armies now. Only the most advanced ones are located around high value targets.

IAF flies over friendly Indian skies and international waters... so much threat. lol Rafale didn't exist in GWI, we flew Jaguars and M2000s. No losses I might add, although the Jags got torn up by AAA. What ALA flies over in Iraq, Serbia, and Libya is more threat than IAF has ever flown over.

Ok. Libya, Iraq and Serbia have a more advanced air defence system than India or China.

It is far easier for them to put a carrier out of commission than the three major air bases within easy reach of Karachi.

Hehe! Really! Cheers.

They have plenty of airbases in and around Karachi. We have a better chance of maintaining a blockade from a moving airbase than fixed airbase. It's not easy at all to put a carrier out of commission especially if we bring in 2 more squadrons of Mig-29k from IAC-1.

You obviously have no clue regarding operations for light carriers. A) you have no catapults, B) you have no buddy refueling, and C) you have very limited payload allowance. Joint Force Harriers during the Falklands took off with a full tank, two drop tanks and AIM-9s for a MiG-CAP which is the only endurance mission they could carryout. With the loss of MPA, there was no refueling aircraft to top them off. You fly with 100% fuel when you need an endurance mission and do not have a cow to fill your tanks. For a ski-jump boat, that will always be a CAP mission.

A)Yes.
B)No. We have buddy refuelling. Standard non removable fit.
c)Not as much as you think. 2 Drop tanks and 2 LGBs are good enough.

Ski jump boat = CAP mission
Then it's funny how we bombed using the much smaller INS Vikrant in East Pakistan in 1971.

I already listed the T/W a Flanker has compared to a modernised MiG-29, it is only slightly less and with canards will get a boost. At 50% fuel and dry thrust is .65 for an Su-30 and .70 for a MiG-29K. That is with no armament. Tack on some ordinance and that drops real quick. Start loading it beyond the traditional A2A loadout and it will never get off the water.

They take off with afterburner ON.

The decision by Russia to purchase MiG-29K was financial and industrial in nature. Su-33 production had stopped with the fall of the USSR and starting up that line again would be expensive. The Indian order for MiG-29Ks meant Russia already had a line going for carrier aircraft and it is cheaper to go with a production aircraft. The biggest reason, Sokol is on the verge of bankruptcy and needed orders bad.

Mig corp is part of UAC now. There is no chance for bankruptcy.
The Mig-29ks have been chosen because they can do more from a ski jump than the Su-33. That's pretty much the only reason.

You know how far a Harrier can fly on 50% fuel and a full payload? The edge of the horizon and back. Without a tanker to top it off, it won't do that.

At 50% fuel and with 2 drop tanks. The Sea Harrier has a larger combat radius than the Mig-29k on 50% internal fuel.

It is flying with a full tank just like RAF Harriers. Clearly a CAP mission.

This one is CAP.

No they can't... the two outer pylons on Sea Harriers are rated light. The Sea Eagles would be carried on the two pylons rated for drop tanks. The biggest thing the outer pylons can carry are ALARMs which are 260kg. You would have a hard time loading two Derbys on that station which is why there is only one Derby and one Python in that picture.

Those are 1000 pounders. There is a CPU-123B 1000lb LGB as well.

Not... the UPAZ buddy pod is over 3000kg. It will never get off the deck.

Standard fit. Check any source you want.

Two drop tanks = 3000kg + 1200kg + 200kg for the special pod required by Russian ARMs... you are already approaching the max loadout of the aircraft taking off from a full stretch runway. It is a dream without a catapult.

2 Drop tanks = 800*2. Say 1600Kg. 3000Kg with 50% fuel sounds realistic.

Kh-31P requires a Progress control pod.

You mean the SIVA HADF Pod. It weight less than 100Kg.

Not when they can't carry enough rounds to saturate the target.

6 Aircraft with 2 LGBs each. That's huge capability. Did you forget we dropped only 9 LGBs in Kargil over an entire month.

This thread isn't about IAC-1, it is about the rust bucket Gorshkov. If you are still using ski-jumps, don't expect it to improve much.

Gorky is not meant to improve. It is just to give a boost to existing capability that we had with Viraat and the Sea Harriers. And I am talking about the capabilities of the Mig-29k.

The Kh-31A/Ps were purchased in the 90s... so much for that theory.

So What? All those are for the IAF and not for IN. IN will use it's own weapons stores. Where did you get the idea IAF and IN share weapons?

Kind of hard to meet that requirement when 12 of those 45 ordered are trainers.

Those trainers pack the same punch as the Ks. They have 90% commonality in internal estate and 100% commonality in avionics and weapons. Perhaps the KUBs will have a more powerful radar for AWACS support and perhaps EW too.

Sure.. that is why MiG-35's engines "proved weak" in IAF trials. UAC lied about RD-33MK TBO hours and it always turns out Russian engines are rated higher than actuality.

Nothing is known about the MRCA trials. Nothing has been revealed till date. So, what do you base this on?

 

[Armand2REP]

The link works fine for me. Dunno why?

My connection times out... nothing on the BEL site comes up.

It's not just maritime patrol assets with Link II. The Link II has been made for all Naval air assets. It's not been advertised only because we don't have enough Mig-29ks as of now. Once Gorky comes on line we will have official confirmation.

I imagine the plan is to induct a forces wide network. Doesn't make any sense to make a different DL for each of the services. We do know the current technology is only attributable to a maritime surveillance capability as evidenced by the platforms currently contracted to be fitted. P-8I, Kamovs, and a warship link to them for ASW and ASUW. Not doing anything for air surveillance yet.

Dude. All are self protection EW, but they work in a radius of 200-300Km standard operating ranges. Sangraha and Samyukta systems are quite similar.

Dude, self protection by its very definition means close in and for that specific platform. It doesn't have squat to do with protecting aircraft hundreds of clicks away.

The Ellora system can jam from HF to MMW bands. That makes it a full fledged EW system.

Dude... you are way off. Ellora is an ESM system. It is like a shipborne RWR. It has NO jamming capability.

It is a standard part of their armies now. Only the most advanced ones are located around high value targets.

China is a big country and the number of HQ-9s and S-300s are still limited... they are not on the border threatening IAF planes in their own airspace. That would cause quite a diplomatic incident.

Ok. Libya, Iraq and Serbia have a more advanced air defence system than India or China.

You don't fly into Chinese air defences, naming your own is absurd. Friendlies are going to shoot you down?

Hehe! Really! Cheers.

They have plenty of airbases in and around Karachi. We have a better chance of maintaining a blockade from a moving airbase than fixed airbase. It's not easy at all to put a carrier out of commission especially if we bring in 2 more squadrons of Mig-29k from IAC-1.

I was talking about Indian air bases, not Pak. It doesn't really matter where theirs are since they can hit a blockade from anywhere. It is relatively easy to put a carrier out of action when you have only moderate AAW and ASW capabilities. All it takes is one Agosta modernised SSK sitting in the fleet path and smack = carrier hit. If they go the more direct route, they only have to attrite the limited number of MiGs and launch a saturation attack to overwhelm the modest AAW.

A)Yes.
B)No. We have buddy refuelling. Standard non removable fit.
c)Not as much as you think. 2 Drop tanks and 2 LGBs are good enough.

A) No catapults... obviously
B) 1000l pod... not worth mentioning
C) You will never get 4000+kg of tanks/bombs/pod of that deck.

Ski jump boat = CAP mission
Then it's funny how we bombed using the much smaller INS Vikrant in East Pakistan in 1971.

INS Vikrant had catapults... duhr

They take off with afterburner ON.

They don't hit AB until after they break from the wheel stops.. otherwise they would roll right over it. Max wet thrust isn't achieved until they are already in the air. It would be real funny watching a Chinese clone trying to takeoff Varyag with WS-10A engines... thing can't even hit afterburner in under a minute. lol

Mig corp is part of UAC now. There is no chance for bankruptcy.

I said Sokol which was never a part of RAC-MiG. So UAC is going to keep paying workers who do nothing? I don't think so. The State had to give them work, hence the MiG-29K order. UAC is a Joint Stock Company now and are responsible to its shareholders... they can't get away with keeping dead wood.

The Mig-29ks have been chosen because they can do more from a ski jump than the Su-33. That's pretty much the only reason.

No, they ordered it to keep the workers at Sokol employed, otherwise they would face another wave of protests, and to get them enough capital to modernise.

At 50% fuel and with 2 drop tanks. The Sea Harrier has a larger combat radius than the Mig-29k on 50% internal fuel.

370km is larger than the MiG-29K? News to me...

This one is CAP.

Clearly

Those are 1000 pounders. There is a CPU-123B 1000lb LGB as well.

Not... they aren't even bombs. They are ferry tanks. There is no LGB on that ferry configuration.

Standard fit. Check any source you want.

Of course you are right... the MiG-29K is getting a special reduced pod called PAZ-MK at 1000l. 1000kg... sounds about right.

2 Drop tanks = 800*2. Say 1600Kg. 3000Kg with 50% fuel sounds realistic.

There are only two drop tank types for MiG-29s... 1250l centre-line and 1500l wing mounts. Want to try that again?

You mean the SIVA HADF Pod. It weight less than 100Kg.

Just a minute ago you were saying it required no pod... oh well

6 Aircraft with 2 LGBs each. That's huge capability. Did you forget we dropped only 9 LGBs in Kargil over an entire month.

It is either 2 500kg LGBs and a 200kg pod or 1 1250l drop tank... take your pick.

Gorky is not meant to improve. It is just to give a boost to existing capability that we had with Viraat and the Sea Harriers. And I am talking about the capabilities of the Mig-29k.

CAP capabilities.. yeah I know.

So What? All those are for the IAF and not for IN. IN will use it's own weapons stores. Where did you get the idea IAF and IN share weapons?

So the IN doesn't have any and has yet to announce an order... uh oh.

Those trainers pack the same punch as the Ks. They have 90% commonality in internal estate and 100% commonality in avionics and weapons. Perhaps the KUBs will have a more powerful radar for AWACS support and perhaps EW too.

Those trainers don't have radars... it doesn't carry a punch.

Nothing is known about the MRCA trials. Nothing has been revealed till date. So, what do you base this on?

 

[p2prada]

I imagine the plan is to induct a forces wide network. Doesn't make any sense to make a different DL for each of the services. We do know the current technology is only attributable to a maritime surveillance capability as evidenced by the platforms currently contracted to be fitted. P-8I, Kamovs, and a warship link to them for ASW and ASUW. Not doing anything for air surveillance yet.

We have only 1 DL for the Navy till date.

Dude, self protection by its very definition means close in and for that specific platform. It doesn't have squat to do with protecting aircraft hundreds of clicks away.

Cruise missile engagements happen from a distance of 100Km to 300Km. You need to have a capability that surpasses that range. Cruise missiles are stealth launches and that's the biggest reason for good EW capability.

Dude... you are way off. Ellora is an ESM system. It is like a shipborne RWR. It has NO jamming capability.

No Ellora is part of Sangraha. It has ECM capabilities from HF to MMW and will be part of our new FFGs and will be part of newer vessels in time.

China is a big country and the number of HQ-9s and S-300s are still limited... they are not on the border threatening IAF planes in their own airspace. That would cause quite a diplomatic incident.

Placing self defence equipment near the border is acceptable. They already have way too many squadrons by now.

You don't fly into Chinese air defences, naming your own is absurd. Friendlies are going to shoot you down?

We consistently operate around two hostile neighbours. IAF area of operations is upto 10Km along the Pakistani border.

I was talking about Indian air bases, not Pak. It doesn't really matter where theirs are since they can hit a blockade from anywhere. It is relatively easy to put a carrier out of action when you have only moderate AAW and ASW capabilities. All it takes is one Agosta modernised SSK sitting in the fleet path and smack = carrier hit. If they go the more direct route, they only have to attrite the limited number of MiGs and launch a saturation attack to overwhelm the modest AAW.

I know you were talking about our bases. But it is not feasible. Hitting a Carrier is much more difficult than you think. Once we have the Gorky, we will have our own CBG. Penetrating our SSKs will be a difficult task. Then we have FFGs with ASW capability along with ASW capability on the Gorky. Hitting a land base is far easier than hitting a moving air base.

With Barak and Barak II we will surpass even France in AAW.

A) No catapults... obviously
B) 1000l pod... not worth mentioning
C) You will never get 4000+kg of tanks/bombs/pod of that deck.

Buddy refueling is there. The Mig-29s total carrying capacity of 500Kg bombs is 13. Carrying 2 out of those is a given.

They don't hit AB until after they break from the wheel stops.. otherwise they would roll right over it. Max wet thrust isn't achieved until they are already in the air. It would be real funny watching a Chinese clone trying to takeoff Varyag with WS-10A engines... thing can't even hit afterburner in under a minute. lol

The Mig-29s were made for STOBAR operations. They can take off with decent payload from small airstrip of less than 200m. So I don't believe Carrier operations are going to be any different. Su-33 isn't capable of STOBAR operations as the Mig-29k is.

I said Sokol which was never a part of RAC-MiG. So UAC is going to keep paying workers who do nothing? I don't think so. The State had to give them work, hence the MiG-29K order. UAC is a Joint Stock Company now and are responsible to its shareholders... they can't get away with keeping dead wood.

Sokol is an airbase along with a manufacturing facility. It is part of the UAC. Russians don't care as much about shareholders. Also there is a possibility Mig is already working on their "low" Fifth gen fighter with a single engine. So their survival isn't dependent on Mig-29k sales.

No, they ordered it to keep the workers at Sokol employed, otherwise they would face another wave of protests, and to get them enough capital to modernise.

The Russians ordered it because we ordered it. The Su-33 they will replace still have a lot of life left in them.

370km is larger than the MiG-29K? News to me...

Combat radius of harrier is 1000Km with drop tanks compared to 850Km for Mig-29 on internal.

Not... they aren't even bombs. They are ferry tanks. There is no LGB on that ferry configuration.

If those are tanks then they will be the 190gallon or the 700L tanks. That again carries more weight than Sea Eagle.

There are only two drop tank types for MiG-29s... 1250l centre-line and 1500l wing mounts. Want to try that again?

Centreline would be the 1500L tank. Hmm. I was sure the other 2 would be 800L, but they are 1150L tanks under the wings.
That's an addition of say 300Kg each.

It is either 2 500kg LGBs and a 200kg pod or 1 1250l drop tank... take your pick.

How about both. Say with the 1500L tank instead.

So the IN doesn't have any and has yet to announce an order... uh oh.

Humbug! IN uses it's own weapons stores and they were all ordered after 2004 for the Mig-29k. Mig-29k is capable of take offs from short runways anyway. So, a carrier makes lesser difference if we go beyond the marine environment.

Those trainers don't have radars... it doesn't carry a punch.

There are plans of equipping them with a more powerful radar for AEW capability. We have only 2 Mig-29Ks and 2 Mig-29KUBs. So, we still have some time to go before both types mature a bit more.

[/quote]

Extrapolation. Nothing on the MRCA deal has been made public to the point where we can brush out any contender. ToI is just pitching for Rafale and EF-2000 based on previous snippets we have been getting from IAF and the contenders.

 

[p2prada]

OK. Just contacted a friend of mine. He designs aircraft.

Told me the Mig-29k can take off at full MTOW from the Gorky with no major issues and at favourable weather conditions. Specs wise it just needs T/W ratio of 0.7 with a 200m runway.

The Mig-29KUB can carry 3 drop tanks with the centre line drop tank with a carrying capacity of 2150Litres from the previous 1520L and can be used for buddy refueling. That's a total of 4450L. It can also mount 4 1150L drop tanks instead for tanker role which makes it 4600L.

The Su-33 can theoretically take off with MTOW, but the deck space on Kuznetsov isn't enough and it's T/W is lower than necessary. A more powerful engine can fix it. So, the current Su-33 can carry around 30 tons from the deck instead of the max 33 tons. But the Russians want more aircraft on their deck now with better availability rates. Thus they opted for Mig-29k. Also modernizing the Su-33 would take more time and money while IN has already helped them with a new carrier capable aircraft which is $15Million cheaper than the Flanker.

 

[youngindian]

Navy crew training in Russia for Gorshkov takeover

http://www.inewsone.com/2011/04/14/navy-crew-training-in-russia-for-gorshkov-takeover/43242

 

[Crusader53]

Clearly, Ski Jump Equipped Carriers are very limited in Capablility. Which, is easy to see when comparing similar sized ships. A good example would be the ~40,000 Charles de Gaulle and the IAC-1. Which, likely explains why India is already looking to equip the IAC-2 and IAC-3 with Catapults and Arresting Gear.

 

[p2prada]

Clearly, Ski Jump Equipped Carriers are very limited in Capablility. Which, is easy to see when comparing similar sized ships. A good example would be the ~40,000 Charles de Gaulle and the IAC-1. Which, likely explains why India is already looking to equip the IAC-2 and IAC-3 with Catapults and Arresting Gear.

It depends on what is required. For eg: The aircraft taking off from Gorshkov are less capable than the Rafale or SH in air to ground roles.

If I want only 6 aircraft flying over my carrier at a time then what I have is enough for me. In some respects, the STOBAR configuration is even better because there are little chances for mechanical failure of the Catapults slowing down my sortie rate and a STOBAR configuration is actually quite cheap to build and operate.

However, if I want all 30 aircraft in the air, then the catapults are better in the overall aspect even if there is a rise in cost of operation, maintenance and crew needs.

The Charles de Gaulle is a superior carrier in a lot of parameters, primary one being Nuclear powered. Even if you compare the new Vikrant class, she has shorter legs and a smaller and less capable air complement meaning a less capable carrier.

In land or air, a Mig-29k needs a 200m runway for take off at full MTOW while the older Mig-29A needed a 300m runway. N-LCA, it is not known but it is good enough to speculate the T/W ratio is good enough for MTOW take off theoretically. Only aerodynamic design has to be seen for maritime operations at low altitudes. However, both are point defence aircraft as compared to the Rafale or SH. Considering sortie rate is higher on CDG compared to a STOBAR carrier, CDG's capabilities is much higher in most parameters.

The right comparison will be the PA-2 and IAC-2 whenever they are available because both are meant to be of similar class and similar capability.

 

[Armand2REP]

We have only 1 DL for the Navy till date.

I said for EACH of the services... do try and keep up.

Cruise missile engagements happen from a distance of 100Km to 300Km. You need to have a capability that surpasses that range. Cruise missiles are stealth launches and that's the biggest reason for good EW capability.

The jamming doesn't occur until the missile goes active, >20km... rather pointless to do it on a preprogrammed trajectory mid-course.

No Ellora is part of Sangraha. It has ECM capabilities from HF to MMW and will be part of our new FFGs and will be part of newer vessels in time.

Ellora is an EMS, I suggest you look up the definition. Jamming is not part of it.

Placing self defence equipment near the border is acceptable. They already have way too many squadrons by now.

Look at the deployment... not even the remotest threat to IAF. High threat environment, more like no threat environment.

http://www.opensourcesinfo.org/journal/2008/2/18/the-chinese-sam-network.html

I know you were talking about our bases. But it is not feasible. Hitting a Carrier is much more difficult than you think. Once we have the Gorky, we will have our own CBG. Penetrating our SSKs will be a difficult task. Then we have FFGs with ASW capability along with ASW capability on the Gorky. Hitting a land base is far easier than hitting a moving air base.

With Barak and Barak II we will surpass even France in AAW.

The only thing difficult from above the surface will be taking down a dozen MiG-29K armed with R-77. Once that is done, it is just a turkey shoot. SSKs may or may not get through, that is a roll of the dice as they can even get US carriers with 3 times the ASW of any Indian fleet.

Barak didn't save the Israeli corvette from some ancient Chinese junk. Pak has far better missiles than Hezzbollah. Barak better then Aster? In your dreams...

Buddy refueling is there. The Mig-29s total carrying capacity of 500Kg bombs is 13. Carrying 2 out of those is a given.

There is no MiG-29 that has a 6500kg capacity off a runway. What MiG-29 has the capacity off a ski jump? Enough of your fantasy loadouts...

The Mig-29s were made for STOBAR operations. They can take off with decent payload from small airstrip of less than 200m. So I don't believe Carrier operations are going to be any different. Su-33 isn't capable of STOBAR operations as the Mig-29k is.

hahaha.... 200m with a decent payload huh? It takes a display MiG-29 at least 250m to take off clean. It takes 1200m to take off at normal combat weight, much less max load.

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/MiG-29-2.htm

Sokol is an airbase along with a manufacturing facility. It is part of the UAC. Russians don't care as much about shareholders. Also there is a possibility Mig is already working on their "low" Fifth gen fighter with a single engine. So their survival isn't dependent on Mig-29k sales.

It is also a place where you can buy a MiG flight, they are that strapped for cash. They care plenty about shareholders since that is where they are trying to raise MONEY... duh. The higher they get for their stock, the more capital they have to run their programmes. Don't you know anything about corporate finance?

The Russians ordered it because we ordered it. The Su-33 they will replace still have a lot of life left in them.

The Su-33s they replace are A) no longer in production, B) have no spares and C) are obsolete.

Combat radius of harrier is 1000Km with drop tanks compared to 850Km for Mig-29 on internal.

Well here are some config ranges for you that should shed some light...

radius of 100 nm (115 miles; 185 km) on a CAP of 90 minutes with four AIM-120 AMRAAMs (or two AMRAAMs and two 30 mm cannon) and two 228.2 US gal (190 Imp gal; 863.75 liter) drop tanks, or 525 nm (600 miles; 970 km) on a hi-lo-hi reconnaissance mission with two 228.2 US gal (190 Imp gal; 863.75 liter) drop tanks, or 200 nm (230 miles; 370 km) on a hi-lo-hi attack mission with two Sea Eagle missiles and two 30 mm cannon, or 116 nm (133 miles; 215 km) on a hi-hi-hi interception mission with two AMRAAMs.

http://members.fortunecity.com/defenceaircrafts/Sea Harrier.htm

If those are tanks then they will be the 190gallon or the 700L tanks. That again carries more weight than Sea Eagle.

The 190g tanks are inboard. Those are the pylons Sea Eagle goes on so it is either tanks or heavy missiles or tanks with light missiles.

Centreline would be the 1500L tank. Hmm. I was sure the other 2 would be 800L, but they are 1150L tanks under the wings.
That's an addition of say 300Kg each.

No Harrier carries a large centreline tank, the clearance is too low.

How about both. Say with the 1500L tank instead.

You are really confused.

Humbug! IN uses it's own weapons stores and they were all ordered after 2004 for the Mig-29k. Mig-29k is capable of take offs from short runways anyway. So, a carrier makes lesser difference if we go beyond the marine environment.

Sure, show me some proof. That is one thing you never bring.

There are plans of equipping them with a more powerful radar for AEW capability. We have only 2 Mig-29Ks and 2 Mig-29KUBs. So, we still have some time to go before both types mature a bit more.

Talking out of your arse as usual.

Extrapolation. Nothing on the MRCA deal has been made public to the point where we can brush out any contender. ToI is just pitching for Rafale and EF-2000 based on previous snippets we have been getting from IAF and the contenders.

You come to this debate with nothing, not even knowledge of the systems you discuss much less evidence of your assertions. What you are saying is laughable really...

 

[p2prada]

I said for EACH of the services... do try and keep up.

I gave it as a FYI. Navy has only one DL for now. Force wide DL is only after 2020.

The jamming doesn't occur until the missile goes active, >20km... rather pointless to do it on a preprogrammed trajectory mid-course.

Ellora is an EMS, I suggest you look up the definition. Jamming is not part of it.

Ellora isn't a point defence jammer. It is a complete self defence suite with a range of upto 300Km. It operates from HF to MMW. Go read up more on jammers.

Jamming is what Ellora is made for. It is being made for all our big ships including Carriers, Destroyers and Frigates.

Look at the deployment... not even the remotest threat to IAF. High threat environment, more like no threat environment.

Wow. Incredible. You have exact info on all SAM sites belonging to PLA. Heck you probably don't even know where all their old J-7s are kept.

Please keep giving more credibility to more such dork articles.

The only thing difficult from above the surface will be taking down a dozen MiG-29K armed with R-77. Once that is done, it is just a turkey shoot. SSKs may or may not get through, that is a roll of the dice as they can even get US carriers with 3 times the ASW of any Indian fleet.

My man. First you have to find the carrier. Then comes the engagement. The location of the land base is already known while the sea base isn't.

Barak didn't save the Israeli corvette from some ancient Chinese junk. Pak has far better missiles than Hezzbollah. Barak better then Aster? In your dreams...

Oh! Puleese. The Barak 2 is the new benchmark for air defence systems all over the world. Aster is an ABM, meaning it's going to be sh!t expensive. You will not be using it against every single target that comes to mind. Give me a missile that is not Aster in French inventory that has dual seekers, networked operation and near 100% kill probability.

Whatever happened with the Israelis is a one off incident and the causes are unknown. The ship was close to the coast and anything could have happened. This is the same reason why the American Frigate fell to a suicide attack in the Persian Gulf.

hahaha.... 200m with a decent payload huh? It takes a display MiG-29 at least 250m to take off clean. It takes 1200m to take off at normal combat weight, much less max load.

Bwahahahaha! Is that even true. Bwahahaha!

http://wp.scn.ru/mig_okb/planes-mig29-9_14
In 1997,

With full fuel storage and four missiles under the wing (2 R-27s and 2 R-73s, take-off weight about 15,400kg) the MiG-29 take-off run is estimated at 230-250m,

Now with an increased thrust of 2 tons and redesign of the airframe to reduce drag. The Mig-29k can take off with MTOW within 200m.

There goes your 1200m claim.

It is also a place where you can buy a MiG flight, they are that strapped for cash. They care plenty about shareholders since that is where they are trying to raise MONEY... duh. The higher they get for their stock, the more capital they have to run their programmes. Don't you know anything about corporate finance?

So what? If they are making their 5th gen aircraft as well, then what's the issue.

They also have orders for over 60 Mig-29ks. Their production lines are busy until 2014.

The Su-33s they replace are A) no longer in production, B) have no spares and C) are obsolete.

The Russians have a lot of Su-27s which are worse off than their Su-33s. The Americans also have old F-16 Block 30s which are more obsolete than the Su-33s. The Su-33s have plenty of life in them and are still being replaced.

Well here are some config ranges for you that should shed some light...

The 190g tanks are inboard. Those are the pylons Sea Eagle goes on so it is either tanks or heavy missiles or tanks with light missiles.

The 190G drop tanks are their smallest drop tanks. Even the quote you posted regarding the Harriers config ranges refer to the 190G tank as the external tank.

No Harrier carries a large centreline tank, the clearance is too low.

That was all for the Mig-29k.

You are really confused.

Mig-29k. Go back to Post 547 and read.

Sure, show me some proof. That is one thing you never bring.

Gave you a link already. And those are figures from 1997. The Mig-29 take off figures from your link are false or perhaps not meant for the Mig-29k.

Talking out of your arse as usual.

Of course. An AEW capability is far fetched to you. Realistic to us.

You come to this debate with nothing, not even knowledge of the systems you discuss much less evidence of your assertions. What you are saying is laughable really...

I gave you a link saying the old Mig-29 R&D units can take off when Fully loaded from 250m, a far sight from your figure of 1200m. 0.7 T/W and MTOW, take off run is possible or even near MTOW. All of this is for afterburner figures at combat thrust. Yes. Our aircraft take off at combat thrust from carriers, even the Su-33.

Funnily enough I do it without having to insult anybody.

All the places you went wrong;

Navy does not have DL. (Now you say Navy has DL but it is not forces wide. Since it is not forces wide it somehow implies the Mig-29k cannot communicate with its mothership whcih was the original topic of discussion. Your aim and conclusion are completely off mark)

Mig-29k cannot take off with 2 LGBs and drop tanks.

Ellora has no ECM.

Sea harrier - Incredible. You post 190G tanks as drop tanks for harrier and then immediately say 190G is on board tank and not a drop tank. ROTFL!

Anything I missed out?

 

[Crusader53]

OK. Just contacted a friend of mine. He designs aircraft.

Told me the Mig-29k can take off at full MTOW from the Gorky with no major issues and at favourable weather conditions. Specs wise it just needs T/W ratio of 0.7 with a 200m runway.

The Mig-29KUB can carry 3 drop tanks with the centre line drop tank with a carrying capacity of 2150Litres from the previous 1520L and can be used for buddy refueling. That's a total of 4450L. It can also mount 4 1150L drop tanks instead for tanker role which makes it 4600L.

The Su-33 can theoretically take off with MTOW, but the deck space on Kuznetsov isn't enough and it's T/W is lower than necessary. A more powerful engine can fix it. So, the current Su-33 can carry around 30 tons from the deck instead of the max 33 tons. But the Russians want more aircraft on their deck now with better availability rates. Thus they opted for Mig-29k. Also modernizing the Su-33 would take more time and money while IN has already helped them with a new carrier capable aircraft which is $15Million cheaper than the Flanker.

NO WAY THE MIG-29K CAN TAKE OFF AT MTOW FROM ANY SKI JUMP EQUIPPED CARRIER. PLEASE, PROVIDE A SOURCE OTHER THAN THE WORD OF A FRIEND. (Which, is no disrespect to the aformeantioned)

 

[hit&run]

NO WAY THE MIG-29K CAN TAKE OFF AT MTOW FROM ANY SKI JUMP EQUIPPED CARRIER. PLEASE, PROVIDE A SOURCE OTHER THAN THE WORD OF A FRIEND. (Which, is no disrespect to the aformeantioned)

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Flight_deck

For conventional aircraft such as the MiG-29 the aircraft just rolls down the runway in the obvious manner. Again, rolling over the ski ramp launches the plane both upwards and forwards.
Such takeoffs allow a larger takeoff weight than a straight vertical launch because the wings provide some lift even at low speeds, and the ski jump ramp provides a vertical impetus when most needed, right at takeoff at the slowest takeoff speed.
These takeoffs use less runway than a takeoff over a flat surface because the plane takes off at a lower speed, using both the ski jump ramp's vertical impetus and the deflected jet engines to generate lift.

http://www.ishop2go.com/productUR_026_PR_0000084_Prt_en.html

For a MiG-29 launching over the ski jump ramp on the Tbilisi, takeoff speed is reduced from about 140 kn (160 mph; 260 km/h) to about 70 kn (81 mph; 130 km/h) (depending on many factors such a gross weight).

The first landing of MiG-29K on the "Tbilisi" aircraft carrier deck ( its present name is "Admiral Kuznetsov"). Then the first take-off of the MiG-29K from the carrier-s deck was successfully performed.

A Su-27K and a MiG-29K are seen together on the deck of the carrier Kuznetsov.

 

[Armand2REP]

NO WAY THE MIG-29K CAN TAKE OFF AT MTOW FROM ANY SKI JUMP EQUIPPED CARRIER. PLEASE, PROVIDE A SOURCE OTHER THAN THE WORD OF A FRIEND. (Which, is no disrespect to the aformeantioned)

Apparently he thinks MTOW means a half tank o' gas and four light AAMs. Per his ONLY source...

In 1997, MiG-29 #407 was geared up for research into the possibility of reducing the take-off distance while taking off from the MT-1 mobile airfield ski-jump. The first take-off was performed on 24 December, 1997 by Flight Research Institute (LII) test pilot Sergei Tresvyatsky. The take-off run equaled 200 m, and it is planned to be reduced further down to 130-150m (with non-full fuel tanks). With full fuel storage and four missiles under the wing (2 R-27s and 2 R-73s, take-off weight about 15,400kg) the MiG-29 take-off run is estimated at 230-250m, which ensures, if necessary, emergency evacuation of the MiG-29-class aircraft from the airfields attacked by the adversary.

http://wp.scn.ru/mig_okb/planes-mig29-9_14

 

[Crusader53]

Apparently he thinks MTOW means a half tank o' gas and four light AAMs. Per his ONLY source...

Well, if the IAF does select the Rafale. A follow on order for the Indian Navy wouldn't surprise me. As its vastly more capable than the Russian Mig-29K. Really, I thing whatever type is selected the LCA/NLCA should use the same engine. That it be EJ200, M-88, or F414.....


Personally, I still wouldn't be surprised if the Super Hornet isn't allow back into the MMRCA and win it yet..........

 

[p2prada]

Apparently he thinks MTOW means a half tank o' gas and four light AAMs. Per his ONLY source...

Armand I gave that info only to prove the Mig-29's take off run at MTOW isn't 1500m as told by you.

In the same link if you look at Mig-29k you will have more information on Mig-29ks capabilities.

OKB MIG Aircraft and History - SERIES-BUILT AIRCRAFT - MiG-29 - Modifications - MiG-29K (9-31)

The MiG-29K power plant consisted of two RD-33K by-pass engines with complex digital control system. The maximum thrust was increased to 5,500 kgf, the maximum afterburner thrust reached 8,800 kgf. Unlike the RD-33K turbojet mounted on the MiG-29M, the shipborne aircraft engines featured an emergency mode, during which a temporary (short time) thrust increase to 9,400 kgf was possible. Thanks to the emergency mode, an aircraft with the take off weight of 17,700 kg could take off from the first starting position (in this case the take off run was 105 m), and a 22,400-kg heavy plane could take off from the second starting position (in this case the take off run amounted to 195 m).

At 22,400Kg, the Mig-29k can have full fuel and a decent payload of 2 to 4 500Kg KABs and AAMs.

22400-5670(internal fuel)=16730Kg. If we take empty weight to be 13.5 tons as on Mig-29M, then the payload is a little over 3 tons.

With 9.4 tons of thrust, the T/W in this configuration is 0.83. This is well over the minimum thrust required to take off in 195m.

As told earlier the Mig-29KUB in tanker role can carry 4 drop tanks along with 100% fuel off a carrier. And these figures are true as of early 2000s, when the Gorky contract was first signed. We don't yet know the entire gamut of it's capabilities. It's empty weight is still kept secret and sources say addition of composites make it less heavier than the Mig-29M at 13.3 tons.

Crusader I hoped that answered your questions.

 

[Crusader53]

Armand I gave that info only to prove the Mig-29's take off run at MTOW isn't 1500m as told by you.

In the same link if you look at Mig-29k you will have more information on Mig-29ks capabilities.

OKB MIG Aircraft and History - SERIES-BUILT AIRCRAFT - MiG-29 - Modifications - MiG-29K (9-31)



At 22,400Kg, the Mig-29k can have full fuel and a decent payload of 2 to 4 500Kg KABs and AAMs.

22400-5670(internal fuel)=16730Kg. If we take empty weight to be 13.5 tons as on Mig-29M, then the payload is a little over 3 tons.

With 9.4 tons of thrust, the T/W in this configuration is 0.83. This is well over the minimum thrust required to take off in 195m.

As told earlier the Mig-29KUB in tanker role can carry 4 drop tanks along with 100% fuel off a carrier. And these figures are true as of early 2000s, when the Gorky contract was first signed. We don't yet know the entire gamut of it's capabilities. It's empty weight is still kept secret and sources say addition of composites make it less heavier than the Mig-29M at 13.3 tons.

Crusader I hoped that answered your questions.

I still have my doubts and will do some more research when I get time. Nonetheless, it's obvious that the Mig-29K is still limited compared to Conventional Naval Aircraft. That operate for Cataplut Equipped Carriers.

 

[p2prada]

I still have my doubts and will do some more research when I get time. Nonetheless, it's obvious that the Mig-29K is still limited compared to Conventional Naval Aircraft. That operate for Cataplut Equipped Carriers.

In the air to ground load out the Gorky's sortie rate is lesser than CdG. But in air to air load out the sortie rate is more or less the same.

The CdG's advantage is it can launch bigger fixed wing aircraft like E-2C.

Considering our ships are mainly air defence ships with anti-air and anti-shipping role with a lesser inclination for delivering strike packages on land and considering more than half the world's shipping happens in the Indian Ocean, what we are currently planning is more than enough for power projection.

Maybe 10 years later when we want to project power beyond the Indian Ocean we will need bigger carriers and better aircraft. The Naval MRCA is particularly meant for after 2017.