Indian Naval Discussion

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby uddu » 01 Mar 2012 18:24

The recent issues related to shooting of innocent fisherman and collision of fishing boat with tanker is due to the failure of UPA govt in preventing piracy. The govt did not take a pro-active approach to eliminate the pirates. They took a defensive stance and was asking the pirates to surrender and throw their guns into the ocean. The only way piracy can be tackled is by eliminating the pirates along with their ships. This is to be followed by hitting them in Somalia at times we like. This can end Piracy. If laws need to be made to proclaim Piracy as terrorism or whatever so be it. Let there be laws passed by the Parliament to take on Piracy and pirates and their complete elimination. And this law need to be enforced all over the Indian ocean by IN and ICG. The incompetent govt is not only allowing the piracy to spread and create panic in the Indian ocean but also making ships to travel close to Indian shores, resulting in the death of innocent fisherman. And above all the attempt being made to release the Italians arrested for shooting dead two Indian fisherman says all about the incompetence and irresponsibility of many in the government. :evil: Those who attempt or rescue the Italian murderers need be they politicians or bureaucracy need to be exposed and punished.

member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_22906 » 01 Mar 2012 19:15

^^ and how do you know who is a pirate from a local fisherman till you board each boat to verify? am sure gone are the days when they hoisted jolly roger and sang yo ho ho and a bottle of rum...!!

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby uddu » 01 Mar 2012 19:30

There are many signs. And if they play Gandhi and did not return fire to provocation, board them, search them. then.....
There are many ways of dealing with Pirates.
Here is one video. But one Moron put it with the caption
Somali pirates killed by Russian Navy where is the world?

Now the comment section has this to say.
basic guidline for somali pirates on enemie naval forces:

1 European navy: will let you life and give you an education

2 American navy: will blow up everything around you in a dramatic fashion

3 Russian navy: will castrate and kill you and your whole family

RESULT: Don't ****** with the Russians

member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_22906 » 01 Mar 2012 21:01

uddu wrote:basic guidline for somali pirates on enemie naval forces:

1 European navy: will let you life and give you an education

2 American navy: will blow up everything around you in a dramatic fashion

3 Russian navy: will castrate and kill you and your whole family

RESULT: Don't ****** with the Russians



:rotfl: :rotfl:

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 01 Mar 2012 22:58



Recd an update and added it.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby koti » 01 Mar 2012 23:19

MiG-29K's to join Russian Navy
The relevant part is, they will replace Su-33 with them. :)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 02 Mar 2012 00:26

This augurs well for the future development of the MIG-29K,as there will be inevitable upgrades in the future,with the aircraft serving in both the IN and RuN,until the naval variant of the FGFA/T-50 arrives.India will not be the only operator and one may see a few other nations also wanting the aircraft in either naval or regular air force versions.It is also a moment of quiet satisfaction for the IN to see Russia following their example in plumping for the Russian aircraft first! The effect of a TVC version should be examined as in both Russia and in India,land based ski-jumps are/have been set up for testing and training of pilots.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby koti » 02 Mar 2012 00:58

This also establishes IMO the advantage of Mig 29K over Su33. The latter though having a better range and load cannot be utilized to its fullest capability when lunched from an AC. The Mig OTOH is a perfect balance of size and capability offering several modern technologies at a very competitive price.

IN's choice of the MiG was a very risky investment, however it is now established in sorts that the decision in itself is a worthy alternative and Russians themselves now acknowledge its validity by this purchase.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2393
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby VinodTK » 02 Mar 2012 06:07

ndian navy purchasing 9 more recon planes
Published: March. 1, 2012 at 5:11 PM

NEW DELHI, March 1 (UPI) -- The Indian government has allocated its navy funds to buy an additional nine mid-range reconnaissance airplanes for nearly $1 billion.

The new aircraft will assist in maintaining India's Indian Ocean security and supplement the Indian navy's earlier order of P-8I Poseidon long-range reconnaissance airplanes from U.S. defense manufacturer Boeing.

The tender for the new aircraft is being sought by not only by Boeing and U.S. defense contractor Lockheed Martin, but Sweden's Saab, France's Dassault Aviation, Brazil's Embraer and European concern EADS, Web site navaltoday.com reported.

India's military specifications demand the new aircraft must carry missiles and torpedoes capable of destroying both surface ships and submarines and have a minimum flight range of the airplanes of 400 miles. The range of Boeing's P-8I is in excess of 1,250 miles.

In 2008 India signed an initial procurement contract with Boeing for eight P-8I Poseidon airplanes worth $2.1 billion, with another contract for an additional four P-8Is expected to be signed this month, as India intends to increase its fleet of Poseidon P-81 patrol aircraft to 24 in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 02 Mar 2012 08:02

An inkling of the confusion within Britain over its future carriers and expensive JSF aircraft to equip them,and the costs of such naval ambitions for the Brits.A comparison with the same of the IN's carrier ambitions and cost should be made as well.There are lessons to be drawn from both naval forces' plans for our future carrier task force ambitions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/0 ... ke-fighter
Defence officials said that the government was "re-assessing" its earlier decision because, they indicated, of pressures on the defence budget.

HMS Queen Elizabeth, the first carrier, will be mothballed immediately it is launched in 2016, according to existing plans. The second, HMS Prince of Wales, will be able to put to sea by 2020, but it is not known how many planes will be able to fly from it – nor what kind.

The two carriers, originally priced at £3.5bn, are now estimated to cost £6.2bn. According to the Commons public accounts committee, the cost is likely to nto as much as £12bn.

The government, which originally said it wanted more than 100 joint strike fighters, says that it will have just six operational ones by 2020. The unit cost of the joint strike fighter, made by Lockheed Martin, has soared because of production problems and delays caused by US defence budget cuts. Britain's BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce have big stakes in a future deal adapting the joint strike fighter for British forces.

A spokesperson for the MoD said: "We are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the equipment plan. As part of this process, we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed. The defence secretary expects to announce the outcome of this process to parliament before Easter."

Related

16 Nov 2011

Harrier fleet sold to US military

29 Sep 2011

Reality check for defence industry

29 Nov 2011

MPs warn Royal Navy's carriers will be costly, late, and of limited use

24 Nov 2011


Avid
BRFite
Posts: 304
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Avid » 02 Mar 2012 08:31

At a cost of 12-billion pounds, and the additional cost of teething, etc.

The british should have bought two Nimitz class from their ally, and it would have cost them ~$10 billion for both, with no delays, and a much bigger air contingent with it.

keshavchandra
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 22:23

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby keshavchandra » 02 Mar 2012 11:01

A K Antony will hand over (TAL) indigenous Lightweight Advance Torpedo to the Indian navy on tomorrow. Its specifications as per chindit:

‘TAL’ TORPEDO

The Light Weight Torpedo has been indigenously developed by the National Science and Technology Laboratory (NSTL), Visakhapatnam.

The Light Weight Torpedo (TAL) is an electrically propelled, self- homing Torpedo which can be launched both from ships and helicopters. It can hunt submarines with a speed of 33 knots with endurance of six minutes in shallow and deep waters. The Torpedo weighs around 220 kgs. BDL is manufacturing these Torpedoes at its Visakhapatnam Unit. :)

For air launch which platform IN will use for these TORPEDO... :?:

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9858
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Yagnasri » 02 Mar 2012 11:32

How good is this Torpedo? Any news of Tech information?

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12405
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 02 Mar 2012 12:06

koti wrote:MiG-29K's to join Russian Navy
The relevant part is, they will replace Su-33 with them. :)


Superb, is the Russian have the aircraft in service it will make sure the Logistics and spare parts do not become too much of an issue.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12405
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 02 Mar 2012 12:07

keshavchandra wrote:A K Antony will hand over (TAL) indigenous Lightweight Advance Torpedo to the Indian navy on tomorrow. Its specifications as per chindit:

‘TAL’ TORPEDO

The Light Weight Torpedo has been indigenously developed by the National Science and Technology Laboratory (NSTL), Visakhapatnam.

The Light Weight Torpedo (TAL) is an electrically propelled, self- homing Torpedo which can be launched both from ships and helicopters. It can hunt submarines with a speed of 33 knots with endurance of six minutes in shallow and deep waters. The Torpedo weighs around 220 kgs. BDL is manufacturing these Torpedoes at its Visakhapatnam Unit. :)

For air launch which platform IN will use for these TORPEDO... :?:


Does that mean its maximum range is 3.3 knots ~ 6Kms? Anuke sub can outrun it and a conventional sub 4km away with max speed to 15 knots submerged can hope to outrun it.

But I guess its 220KG overall weight means small ships, aircraft and Helicopters can easily carry this a payload and the last 2 can drop it on top of the submerged sub.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby koti » 02 Mar 2012 12:23

Aditya_V wrote:Does that mean its maximum range is 3.3 knots ~ 6Kms? Anuke sub can outrun it and a conventional sub 4km away with max speed to 15 knots submerged can hope to outrun it.


AFAIK a light torpedo will never be used in sub to sub action unless they manage to come extremely close and head on, in which case the outrunning issue will not arise. If the victim sub is in a tail on phase, there is no point using a light Torpedo as med Torpedos will be employed.

I think Kilo or Foxtrot subs carry only standard torpedos of 533mm.
Anyway, TAL will be primarily used by ASW Helos, and the range IMO is quite adequate given this.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12405
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 02 Mar 2012 12:27

I meant if fired against a conventional sub 4 km away.

sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby sohamn » 02 Mar 2012 12:58

I was just seeing the Pics in the presidential fleet review link and I didn't find any RBU-1200 or torpedo tubes on INS Agray which is supposed to be a Pauk Class Anti Submarine Corvette. :eek:

Image

Can some Guru's throw some light? When did IN decide to turn a Pauk Class Corvette into a patrol craft? :?: :?:

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Kersi D » 02 Mar 2012 15:19

Philip wrote:This augurs well for the future development of the MIG-29K,as there will be inevitable upgrades in the future,with the aircraft serving in both the IN and RuN,until the naval variant of the FGFA/T-50 arrives.India will not be the only operator and one may see a few other nations also wanting the aircraft in either naval or regular air force versions.It is also a moment of quiet satisfaction for the IN to see Russia following their example in plumping for the Russian aircraft first! The effect of a TVC version should be examined as in both Russia and in India,land based ski-jumps are/have been set up for testing and training of pilots.


Philip,
Can a TVC used for a carrier take-off ? Would it not burn the flight deck ? Has it been done anywhere before ?

K

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby shiv » 02 Mar 2012 15:32

Kersi D wrote:Can a TVC used for a carrier take-off ? Would it not burn the flight deck ? Has it been done anywhere before ?

K


Harrier :D

akimalik
BRFite
Posts: 133
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 11:27

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby akimalik » 02 Mar 2012 16:01

Kersi D wrote:Would it not burn the flight deck ?

Won't the nozzles be pointing upwards during take-off? Pointing in the same direction as the elevators.

aniket
BRFite
Posts: 290
Joined: 14 Dec 2010 17:34
Location: On the top of the world

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby aniket » 02 Mar 2012 16:42

Also I think by the F-35B if I am not wrong

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Philip » 02 Mar 2012 16:52

There is a huge amount of data about the Harrier's unique "VIFFing" ability (vectoring in forward flight),giving it unparalleled dogfighting advantage.The Harrier actually has one of the best air-to-air combat records-I do't think a single Harrier has been lost in air combat at all.
The VSTOL system is ideally the best for carrier ops,which i why the UK govt. prefers this system instead of cats.There have been some posts earlier about "relative recovery",where a STOVL aircraft can approach the deck at any angle to the carrier,making it a very simple and tension free exercise when recovering aircraft,landing vertically.The enprmous cost of installing steam cats/EMALS,which also require aditional power/more pwoerful powerplants,adds to bilions. I think the quoted figure I gave earlier was $1.6 for the UK carriers.

Though the STOVL version of the JSF would have a lesser weaponload/capablities than the CTOL version,in my opinion,it is fully worth it.In fact,this is the only version of the JSF that one would buy even at a very high cost. The USMC require hundreds of this version for their amphibious carriers to replace their Harriers,and they made a huge bargain by buying all the 70+ UK GR Harriers stupidly retired early,lock,stock and barrel at throwaway prices.(The IN should've at least acquired a dozen of them to have kept our small number aloft until the end of the decade.I think that there are still some Sea Harriers available.)

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Kersi D » 02 Mar 2012 17:11

shiv wrote:
Kersi D wrote:Can a TVC used for a carrier take-off ? Would it not burn the flight deck ? Has it been done anywhere before ?

K


Harrier :D


OOooooppppssss.

I really forgot the Harrier !!! I am getting old !!!

K

member_20067
BRFite
Posts: 627
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby member_20067 » 02 Mar 2012 18:57

shiv wrote:
Kersi D wrote:Can a TVC used for a carrier take-off ? Would it not burn the flight deck ? Has it been done anywhere before ?

K


Harrier :D


Yakovlev Yak-38 as well

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby shiv » 02 Mar 2012 20:38

And the V-22 Osprey is in service with the US Navy on small carriers.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2777
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby JTull » 02 Mar 2012 20:45

shiv, Osprey is technically not a TVC. They tilt the entire engine. I don't think can vector-control the wash of propeller. :)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby shiv » 02 Mar 2012 21:23

JTull wrote:shiv, Osprey is technically not a TVC. They tilt the entire engine. I don't think can vector-control the wash of propeller. :)

Technically it is thrust vectoring. Having said that the externally "blown flaps" of the C-17 are also thrust vectoring which is vector control of the wash of the engines. Semantics more than traditional terminology

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Singha » 02 Mar 2012 21:50

harrier has never had to undertake air combat against competent enemies loaded for a2a with good radar. its sole claim to fame being bagging a few argentine etendards loaded with bombs and at limit of their range.

a well handled M2K/Mig29 with good radar and aam combo will probably make short work of the famous RAF sea harrier with sea vixen radar and amraam. they will launch from superior height and speed to max the advantage and retain far greater energy.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Lalmohan » 02 Mar 2012 22:13

book written by RN harrier pilot who was shot down over yugoslavia talks about DACT with Luftwaffe Mig29's - the sea harriers (non BVR model) got their musharraf's handed to them on a platter during training over Sardinia

viffing is a mixed blessing, the loss of energy could be a problem

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Sagar G » 02 Mar 2012 22:40

What the Armed Forces Expect from DRDO? By Admiral Arun Prakash

I didn't see this article posted here, great read.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 02 Mar 2012 22:51


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 02 Mar 2012 23:08



1) I am not too sure why a Russian Naval news item is posted in IN thread. But, others have been similarly corrupted, So, .............

2) On

The relevant part is, they will replace Su-33 with them. :)


NOPE.

This is a give-a-dog-a-bone.

If one were to check on Uncle google, they would have found:

2009 Russian Navy will probably buy 24 MiG-29K fighters designed for India

Yikes. Yes. Yikes. In that article:

Currently, there are 19 Su-33 deck-based fighters in Russian naval aviation (the only fighter serially produced for Russian Armed Forces in 1992-1996), but their service life will be expired by 2015; therefore, the issue of their replacement is actual nowadays, said the source in the Ministry of Defense.

Production of new Su-33 is possible but unprofitable if production volume is small; and production of Mig-29K, considering 16 aircrafts ordered by India and potential 28 fighters to be delivered to this country, is much more economic value-added, says Makinenko. According to him, this cheapens the series and saves money for development.


Seems to me that IF India did not have a follow on order, THIS RuN order may not have taken place.

TIA India.

All that discussion about TVC, etc, is bogus. I doubt that India would do very much after this order. IF nothing more happens to Indian 29K, nothing is going to happen to the RuN 29Ks. I would like to think when all said and done IN will sell their 29K to the RuN. All of them for a FGFA-N or a F-35C.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Indranil » 02 Mar 2012 23:43

NRao wrote: I would like to think when all said and done IN will sell their 29K to the RuN. All of them for a FGFA-N or a F-35C.

I on the other hand believe that the Mig-29Ks are excellent buys for 40+T aircraft carriers. Plus, they are a terrific bang for money.
Rehashing known points:
1. Su-33 and Tomcat sized planes need catapults to be deployed at maximum potential ... Besides they have a huge footprint ... Kuznetsov will carry twice the number of Mig-29Ks as Su-33s ... 2 Mig29s have more payload than a single Su-33 ... same will go for FGFA ... No wonder, IN favors Rafale over any other plane(same size and weight as the Migs)

2. Mig 29ks are huge bang for money ... and for that reason I would not favour a F-35 ... AMCA-N would be much better.

Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 516
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Nick_S » 03 Mar 2012 03:03

indranilroy wrote:Rehashing known points:
1. Su-33 and Tomcat sized planes need catapults to be deployed at maximum potential ... Besides they have a huge footprint ... Kuznetsov will carry twice the number of Mig-29Ks as Su-33s ... 2 Mig29s have more payload than a single Su-33 ... same will go for FGFA ... No wonder, IN favors Rafale over any other plane(same size and weight as the Migs)


Sir, that is a misconception. There is only a slight footprint difference between Mig-29k and Su-33 when folded. Here is a post from flanker man @ AFM.

Su-33

Wing Span = 14.7m (48 ft 2 in)
Folded Span = 7.4m (24 ft 3 in)

MiG-29K

Wing Span = 11.4 m (37 ft 3 in)
Folded Span = 7.8m (25 ft 7 in)

Even with a folding tailcone and nose pitot, the Su-33 is slightly longer than a MiG-29K, but the critical deck-space dimension is the folded span.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 03 Mar 2012 03:47

I on the other hand believe that the Mig-29Ks are excellent buys for 40+T aircraft carriers. Plus, they are a terrific bang for money.
Rehashing known points:
1. Su-33 and Tomcat sized planes need catapults to be deployed at maximum potential ... Besides they have a huge footprint ... Kuznetsov will carry twice the number of Mig-29Ks as Su-33s ... 2 Mig29s have more payload than a single Su-33 ... same will go for FGFA ... No wonder, IN favors Rafale over any other plane(same size and weight as the Migs)

2. Mig 29ks are huge bang for money ... and for that reason I would not favour a F-35 ... AMCA-N would be much better.


I am not too sure what I am missing here, but, whatever we here tend to think and rationalize is one thing - and nothing wrong with that. What has what we think to do with what they have said all along?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4616
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 03 Mar 2012 04:41

^ Well there was a lingering doubt as to whether the RuN would ever invest in the 29K - sure there were noises, but nothing had come of it. Now that it has, whether or not it was always the plan, it should work in India's favor. As to whether the Russkis piggybacked on India's investment or not, the point is somewhat moot since the IN desperately required a decent aircraft for its CBGs, and only the MiG-29K would fit the budget.

No point begrudging the Russians their profit. And it is very doubtful indeed that the IN will resell the birds to Russia - these a/c are designed (with no meager IN input) to serve as the CBG's spearhead for a long time - I'd bet about 40 years. Expect a solid MLU or even a CIP in place considering how foresighted the IN is.

Nick_S, irrespective of what Ken the "flanker man" says, iirc, the main reason the IN did not go with a flanker variant for the Vikad, and it had shown great interest in an MKI derivative, was because of space constraints on the lift.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby NRao » 03 Mar 2012 04:48

^

One of the problems of posting a non-IN topic in a IN thread is the confusion it creates. I should have taken my first post and posted in the International Naval thread. My fault.

True. I do not expect the IN to sell the MiGs to anyone too. The point I was trying to make and it got lost - I suspect because this is an IN thread - is that the RuN did not have any intentions of getting the MiGs. However, since they could not afford a 33 they needed an alternative.

Even then I doubt if they could afford the MiGs if it were not for the 2nd Indian order.

Then too I still feel that they did it only to pacify a MiG appendix.

Anyways, on to more important things. TVC for MiGs.

Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 516
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Nick_S » 03 Mar 2012 05:00

Cain Marko wrote:Nick_S, irrespective of what Ken the "flanker man" says, iirc, the main reason the IN did not go with a flanker variant for the Vikad, and it had shown great interest in an MKI derivative, was because of space constraints on the lift.


True. I think there was also an issue with the larger Su-33 wing span being uncomfortably close to the deck infrastructure during take-off (or something like that... getting old now :P ).

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Postby Indranil » 03 Mar 2012 05:12

Nick_S wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Rehashing known points:
1. Su-33 and Tomcat sized planes need catapults to be deployed at maximum potential ... Besides they have a huge footprint ... Kuznetsov will carry twice the number of Mig-29Ks as Su-33s ... 2 Mig29s have more payload than a single Su-33 ... same will go for FGFA ... No wonder, IN favors Rafale over any other plane(same size and weight as the Migs)


Sir, that is a misconception. There is only a slight footprint difference between Mig-29k and Su-33 when folded. Here is a post from flanker man @ AFM.

Su-33

Wing Span = 14.7m (48 ft 2 in)
Folded Span = 7.4m (24 ft 3 in)

MiG-29K

Wing Span = 11.4 m (37 ft 3 in)
Folded Span = 7.8m (25 ft 7 in)

Even with a folding tailcone and nose pitot, the Su-33 is slightly longer than a MiG-29K, but the critical deck-space dimension is the folded span.

Please don't use sir for me :).

What you are saying must be true. But that is only one aspect of footprint. The wings are folded based on your maximum height of the plane. After folding the wing the height of the plane should not increase. Here have a look

Su-33 (5.93 m)
Image

Mig-29K (4.40 m)
Image

May be you can have more floors of decks with the Mig-29K than with the Su-33. I produced the facts of Kuznetsov. Fact is that Kuznetsov accommodates 12(sometimes reported as 14) Su-33s at any given time and is planned to accomodate 28 Mig-29Ks! I don't find it surprising at all, because even our 40T IAC is supposed to handle 29 Mig 29Ks.

Also it would be very wrong to say that the length does not play a part. This is the look of an hangar inside an AC
Image
The Su-33 is more than 4.5 mtrs longer than the Mig29K i.e. 33% longer than the Mig-29K!


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests