MRCA News and Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 08 Oct 2009 23:53

aditp wrote:
Kartik, GBU-24 is 2000 lbs (NOT 2000KGs) ~ equals about 900 Kgs
Brahmos air launched is 2500KGs. Neither would it be possible to lighten the missile enough (it is already lightened from around 4 tons). Nor would it me possible to strengthen the centerline pylon to carry something 2.5 times as heavy.


thanks for pointing out nothing. I too said 2000 lbs only, so whats the need to paint it in colours and highlight it as if said the GBU-24 was 2000 kgs ?

The point I made was that with suitable structural modifications, a Rafale could carry a 2000 kg weapon on its centerline- it is possible to beef up the centerline max. load with a heavier structure, as is being done for the Su-30MKI. I don't think that anyone on BRF can say outright that its not possible, since only Dassault engineers would know if its impossible or not.

The same was true for the air-launched Brahmos as well- no IAF fighter could carry it, so they reduced its weight, shortened the booster and now are structurally modifying MKIs to carry it. if a requirement is stated, Dassault could look into it.

hence a lightened Brahmos variant, with an even smaller booster and reduced length and a much smaller top speed would definitely reduce weight further. as I mentioned earlier, the kinetic energy of the missile is not useful for a nuke strike, since its not supposed to score a direct hit on a target like regular Brahmos missiles do- rather its supersonic abilities make it an ideal nuke cruise missile because its extremely difficult to shoot down such a missile in its terminal stages or indeed any stage, plus its proven so development time would be much shorter. the only question is whether India could develop a nuclear warhead for such a missile.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 09 Oct 2009 00:13

Baldev wrote:its simple,for our western neighbour we don't need air launched brahmos moreover they don't have anything to counter brahmos so need need to launch missile from air but can be launched from ground

secondly against china brahmos missile range is totally inadequate,so its better to use longer range subsonic cruise missile

last option for air launched brahmos remains is anti ship missile because its supersonic but its range here is again inadequate but this problem can be overcome by using long range fighter or bomber which can fly at long ranges :D


going by your attitude of finding excuses for why a Brahmos variant cannot be used for nuclear strike, I'd say that the Harpoon II is good enough for anti-ship strike and the IAF has Jaguar IM's with these missiles specially for the anti-shipping role. so why even bother with Brahmos for the Su-30MKI with all the flight testing and integration if there is already another missile in the IAF that can do the role ?

you haven't given a single good reason for why a lighter Brahmos variant used for nuke strike, like the ASMP-A would be a bad idea. if developed indigenously, there is no 300 km MTCR restriction, and a lower max speed will give higher range if designed well, even for a smaller missile with a much smaller booster. as for range, the Rafale's unrefuelled range is good enough to strike China, thank you very much and with IFR can strike even deeper. and if all you want is that someone says that the MKI should carry it, then there you go- put it on the MKI to carry it deep into China- happy now ?

anyway, found an article on wikipedia that states that Su-30MKI's don't need any structural mods to fit the air-launched Brahmos


PUNE: An expert committee from the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and the Indian Air Force (IAF) has ruled out any structural
modification to the advanced Sukhoi-30 MKI, if it has to be fitted with the supersonic Brahmos cruise missile.

The development assumes significance as the IAF had expressed reservation on the feasibility of fitting the three-tonne missile on a Su-30 MKI, saying the excessive weight was incompatible for the fighter fleet.


In May, A. Sivathanu Pillai, the chief controller (R&D ), DRDO, had told TOI that decks have been cleared to conduct the first trials of the air-to-land version of Brahmos from a Sukhoi-MkI fighter jet by next year end.

“A joint team of experts from the IAF, the Sukhoi Design Bureau, Brahmos Aerospace and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited was constituted to conduct a feasibility study,” a senior official told TOI , confirming the development.

“The expert committee has come to the conclusion that no structural changes are required in the aircraft to fit the Brahmos,” the official said. Experts are now working to accommodate at least two missiles in the aircraft, he added.

“The challenge is to try and fit one missile under each of the two wings of the Su-30 MKI,” the official said, adding that the integration trials of a dummy missile are scheduled in the first quarter of next year.

Efforts are also on to modify the control panel in the cockpit, which will allow the pilot to fire the missile at ease. With the induction of the 290-km range cruise missile, the city is poised to emerge as the country’s top strategic defence base. The IAF’s Lohegaon base here is the only one with two squadrons of the Su-30 MKI.


I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that the air-launched Brahmos is optimized for anti-shipping missions.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 09 Oct 2009 03:12

but is it not the air launched brahmos to be redesigned to weigh much lesser than the surface one? by how much anyone knows?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 09 Oct 2009 03:34

SaiK wrote:but is it not the air launched brahmos to be redesigned to weigh much lesser than the surface one? by how much anyone knows?


check wikipedia. its 2500 kgs for the air-launched version, a 500 kg reduction from the land and ship-launched version.

dorai
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 07:24

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby dorai » 09 Oct 2009 07:58

Posted on mp.net this is google translated from a interview with Saab in brazil. Could be interesting since they offer the same system to IAF.

DB - The Vixen radar 1000ES is being developed by Selex in conjunction with Saab for the Gripen NG. There are already some are predicting when the first units ready? This period is sufficient for the delivery to Brazil in 2014, considering the time of testing, approval and production? How to ensure that the capabilities of the new radar does not fall below the planned?

BJ - Selex Galileo is one of the largest companies in the industry regarding the development and production of radars. The AESA antenna technology is fully understood and that company has products with AESA antennas fully developed (peaks, Seaspray 5000E and 7000E, Vixen 500). Selex Galileo also participates in the development of the Captor radar for Typhoon.

The antenna of Vixen 1000ES will be of type "swashplate, which can detect targets in a field sweep of 105 degrees in all directions, with a total of 210 degrees around the axis of the aircraft.

In a scenario of an engagement-to-air BVR, this type of antenna will allow the monitoring of targets without requiring an unwelcome approach that would be inevitable with the current AESA antennas.

Considering the experience of Selex Galileo in the industry, Saab believes very low risk of developing the antenna AESA radar for the Gripen NG Brazil.

It is important to inform that only the antenna AESA is in development. The antenna of Vixen 500 have 500 T / R modules, and the Vixen 1000 has 1000 modules. This is not to develop a new technology.

All other components of the radar, such as processor, transmitter, etc.. Are products developed by Saab Microwave Systems (formerly Ericsson Microwave) and already in operation.


Saab Microwave is a manufacturer of Erieye radar with AESA technology fitted to the aircraft Embraer AEW & C - E-99.

DB - Is there any proposal for transfer of technology relating to Vixen 1000ES? What would be the autonomy of Brazil in the maintenance and adjustment of radar?

BJ - The transfer of technology is available and limited only by the current capacity of domestic firms to absorb it, because as previously mentioned, the Saab Microwave and Selex Galileo dominate all the technologies involved.

The maintenance of the radar at all levels, will be made by a domestic company.

But the most important in terms of technology transfer will be Embraer's participation in the process of integration of the radar on the aircraft, from the theoretical to the flight test and certification system. Therefore, only the program Gripen NG Brazil can do.


http://defesabrasil.com/site/noticias/p ... brasil.php

Asit P
BRFite
Posts: 311
Joined: 14 May 2009 02:33

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Asit P » 09 Oct 2009 09:55

SaiK wrote:but is it not the air launched brahmos to be redesigned to weigh much lesser than the surface one? by how much anyone knows?

As per this report in Times Of India, it is 500 kg.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kersi D » 09 Oct 2009 11:07

Kartik wrote:
Baldev wrote:

I'd say that the Harpoon II is good enough for anti-ship strike and the IAF has Jaguar IM's with these missiles specially for the anti-shipping role.



I do not think we have any Harpoon I/II/III/xxx.

IN has issued a tender fro a AShM to replace the Sea Eagle bu I ma not aware of any conclusion. Harpoon could be in th running as it can be easily used by IN P 8IN

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1245
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby RKumar » 09 Oct 2009 16:44

Self deleted ... starting wrong discussion.
Last edited by RKumar on 09 Oct 2009 16:56, edited 2 times in total.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1245
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby RKumar » 09 Oct 2009 16:52

shameekg wrote:
You are considering the date of the original induction for the F-16 and not that for the F-18. The F-18 was inducted in 1983 and is not that new either.


I dont know if you have access to some confidential data, but as per open source information as I stated earlier is inducted in 1999 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

shameekg wrote:
While we are looking at the Super Hornet, we are also looking at the F-16 IN which is not that old.

It is a variation to existing plane, not a complete new family.

shameekg wrote:We dont have unlimited money, but the Rafale is a part of the competition for a reason. And if it meets the requirements the best, it will be chosen.


I will be more then happy, if price is less then 60m $ a bird. If I look for a part of the competition, then every plane has equal chance.

shameekg wrote:As to the 2040 discussion, I know we are collaborating with Russia for the FGFA. But it does not have to be Russia and USA/other country in the future for our aircraft. It can be Russia and India if the LCA and MCA are achieved to their full potential. But thats a discussion for another forum.


I agree

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 09 Oct 2009 19:42

Has the well run dry on the Rafale tests?

karthik
BRFite
Posts: 228
Joined: 22 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: chennai

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby karthik » 09 Oct 2009 21:20

Here is a great way to narrow down the MRCA contest, conduct a series of underground nuclear tests and wake up the next day morning and check how many are still there and go with what ever is left(Mig may be rafael). Its not rocket science to test these aircrafts, it completely foreign policy onlee.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 09 Oct 2009 21:36

sure enough.. all this natak is for price reduction and enabling competition, so that russkies and frenchies knows there is a always a gripen out there or a typhoon will strike if they don't play their trumph well.

all in all, we are now keeping the race very competitive, untill some thing really gets screwed up. thanks to france, for responding back to corrections in their rfp submissions, else we would have missed a nice fighter.

onleee if france and russia had played better, we would have long back split the mmrca order by 50 rafales and 80 mig35s by now, nicely toted to our needs.

rajeshks
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 29 Dec 2007 22:43

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby rajeshks » 09 Oct 2009 21:48

karthik wrote:Here is a great way to narrow down the MRCA contest, conduct a series of underground nuclear tests and wake up the next day morning and check how many are still there and go with what ever is left(Mig may be rafael). Its not rocket science to test these aircrafts, it completely foreign policy onlee.


he he... Good idea... but MRCA contest is not end of world for us..

rajeshks
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 29 Dec 2007 22:43

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby rajeshks » 09 Oct 2009 22:00

SaiK wrote:sure enough.. all this natak is for price reduction and enabling competition, so that russkies and frenchies knows there is a always a gripen out there or a typhoon will strike if they don't play their trumph well.

all in all, we are now keeping the race very competitive, untill some thing really gets screwed up. thanks to france, for responding back to corrections in their rfp submissions, else we would have missed a nice fighter.

onleee if france and russia had played better, we would have long back split the mmrca order by 50 rafales and 80 mig35s by now, nicely toted to our needs.


Very true...

Better late than never... France & Russia can still sweeten their offers and grab the deal.. And we will also be happy to be with our old friends... Selecting Mig will also mean that we dont need to buy a lot of new weapons, our existing inventory can be reused. A healthy mix of old and new weapons..

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 09 Oct 2009 22:12

Kersi D wrote:I do not think we have any Harpoon I/II/III/xxx.

IN has issued a tender fro a AShM to replace the Sea Eagle bu I ma not aware of any conclusion. Harpoon could be in th running as it can be easily used by IN P 8IN


India has actually selected the Harpoon Block II

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to India of HARPOON Block II Missiles as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $170 million.

The Government of India has requested a possible sale of 20 AGM-84L HARPOON Block II missiles; 4 ATM-84L HARPOON Block II Exercise missiles; containers; training devices; spare and repair parts; supply/technical support; support equipment; personnel training and training equipment; technical data and publications; U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics support The estimated cost is $170 million.


Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4371
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 09 Oct 2009 22:25

Raosaar,

To confirm what I wrote previously - cross posting from the international new sections (thx to Austin)

Russian Navy to buy 24 MiG-29K carrier-based fighters

MOSCOW, October 9 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's Navy will buy at least 24 MiG-29K (Fulcrum-D) fighters to be deployed on the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, an unnamed Defense Ministry official said on Friday.

He added that deliveries of the carrier-based multirole fighters would start in 2010.

The MiGs will subsequently replace the Su-33 (Flanker-D) carrier-based fighters, even though their service life does not expire until 2025.

Military analyst Konstantin Makiyenko suggested that production of new Su-33 aircraft was possible but not cost-effective, given the small production volumes, whereas considering that India has already contracted 16 MiG-29K's and could place an order for another 28, the latter option is more financially viable.

The 24 aircraft will cost an estimated $1 billion.


CM.

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 698
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby karan_mc » 09 Oct 2009 22:33

Will american jets be nuke capable ? I mean will they be able 2 carry nukes ?paki f-16 are not nuke capable its seems

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 09 Oct 2009 22:38

CM,

I did notice. (Actually I think the Russians are reading my posts and are acting to discredit me!! But that is a different story.)

However, the issue I have is with the 35. It is my understanding that it is rather different than the 29, it has some components common, but will need some parts that will not fit the 29. Is that right?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4371
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 09 Oct 2009 22:50

NRao wrote:CM,

I did notice. (Actually I think the Russians are reading my posts and are acting to discredit me!! But that is a different story.)

However, the issue I have is with the 35. It is my understanding that it is rather different than the 29, it has some components common, but will need some parts that will not fit the 29. Is that right?


No, no sir. The current 35 and the 29K are pretty much the same airframe. Only the K has certain extras for carrier ops hence is heavier by about 1 ton - larger wings + strengthened landing gear, arrestor hook etc.

Otherwise they are considered a "uniform family" airframe, avionics wise.

Of course, the 35 will come with an AESA (Zhuk A), whose current backend is the same as the ZHuk ME on the K. Same OLS as well. A few new things like an LWS and internal jammer perhaps, but even the RWR on the 35 is advertised as the Tarang.

The commonality between the two a/c is greater than 90%

CM.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 09 Oct 2009 22:51

elta 2052 or an mmr-2 version on mig35 could bring interesting change to this puppy. besides, on the engine, we could ask the klimovs to move over the SC blades in addtion to the BLISK tech they have. our vetrivel team is ready to version 2 for the next candiate, and could be very well the migs if they engage this way, by firing israeli, french and russian weapons from mig35 platform. firing ks172 and metor, plus a modernized scaled brahmos could make it the killer platform, with the engaging OLS integration for close combats using TVC.

little config changes, and thats it!.. (of course besides other augmentations that comes with in)
Last edited by SaiK on 10 Oct 2009 19:38, edited 1 time in total.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 09 Oct 2009 23:12

Cain Marko wrote:No, no sir. The current 35 and the 29K are pretty much the same airframe. Only the K has certain extras for carrier ops hence is heavier by about 1 ton - larger wings + strengthened landing gear, arrestor hook etc.


CM, Igorr in a post somewhere on this page or the previous one, said that there were structural differences between the K and the -35. they are from the same "unified" family as you said, but there are differences.

Of course, the 35 will come with an AESA (Zhuk A), whose current backend is the same as the ZHuk ME on the K. Same OLS as well.


this is again not in line with what Igorr stated- the Zhuk ME is an older set and the AE has more recently developed back end components. Even then, they were trying to reduce the size of some component (can't remember which one) to fit a larger antenna with more T/R modules into the nose of the MiG-35. if the back-end were the same as the Zhuk-ME, the array size would be similar as well, allowing 1000 T/R modules to be fit into the MiG-35s nose, which currently isn't the case.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4371
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 10 Oct 2009 02:31

Kartik wrote:CM, Igorr in a post somewhere on this page or the previous one, said that there were structural differences between the K and the -35. they are from the same "unified" family as you said, but there are differences.

Kartik, the only differences planned afaik are more composites and possibly 11 hps. And even here I have found no printed sources - perhaps Igorr can find something in russian. But the keyword here is "planned". As of now no such a/c exists. the current 35 and the ones due to arrive here are simply older Ms. I doubt they even have the composite levels that the current K possesses. In either case the differences are not of kind but of marginal degree, the composite %age could be increased on the Ks with time - the planned 35 would actually be a result of all the development that has gone into the Ks.

this is again not in line with what Igorr stated- the Zhuk ME is an older set and the AE has more recently developed back end components. Even then, they were trying to reduce the size of some component (can't remember which one) to fit a larger antenna with more T/R modules into the nose of the MiG-35. if the back-end were the same as the Zhuk-ME, the array size would be similar as well, allowing 1000 T/R modules to be fit into the MiG-35s nose, which currently isn't the case.


Again, afaik, the current Zhuk A is with an ME backend (or at least was originally). has this changed? the small size is because of 1) weight and 2) cooling considerations. They have tried to perforate and builid with lighter materials iirc. To quote Kopp, who uses the Phaza journal (a guy named Flateric had posted the entire lot @ secretprojects earlier):
Phazotron believe that the existing Zhuk AE design is performing below its potential, since much of the processing it uses was taken unchanged from earlier mechanically steered arrays and is thus not optimised to exploit the AESA.

Admittedly, this is bound to change and the definitive Zhuk A will be considerably different from the ME not to say that a relatively simple antenna upgrade for the ME is not possible.

but my larger point kartik is that there are no unsurmountable differences between an IN Mig-29K and a definitive Mig-35 other than what is reqd. for carrier ops. The 35 could be more advanced at the outset but the K can get there with upgrades. In fact, I don't see why in the event that Mig wins the MrCa competition, they won't maximize common features between the two a/c.

CM.

nitinr
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 10 Aug 2008 17:35

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nitinr » 10 Oct 2009 17:43

Just a thought process... We are / were planning to upgrade M2000 for quiet sometime but hasnt happened yet.

Can it be related to the Rafael chances in the MRCA.. why spend 2 billion $ on upgrade when a new plane from same country is available and the money can be used there...

Anybody else here also thinking in same way...

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Gaur » 10 Oct 2009 18:04

^^ No relation whatsoever. Mirage would have to be upgraded no matter the outcome of MRCA.

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

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kersi D » 10 Oct 2009 19:19

karthik wrote:Here is a great way to narrow down the MRCA contest, conduct a series of underground nuclear tests and wake up the next day morning and check how many are still there and go with what ever is left(Mig may be rafael). Its not rocket science to test these aircrafts, it completely foreign policy onlee.


This was what I had suggested, I think on this topic. Forget about which aircraft survives. Choose the country that stands by you.
do not waste time and money on the tests in Bangalore, and Rajasthan and Leh etc

K

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 10 Oct 2009 19:42

of course, all that I am saying (per my last thoughts), should come within $35M - $40 max per craft. we can pay a little extra for other integration works and codes. [$45max all inclusive].

we would have extras for more weapons and advanced electronics., perhaps look at MMRCa as the next level of MKIzation.

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Igorr » 10 Oct 2009 21:13

Cain Marko wrote:Kartik, the only differences planned afaik are more composites and possibly 11 hps. And even here I have found no printed sources - perhaps Igorr can find something in russian. But the keyword here is "planned".

The difference of MiG-35/MiG-35D from MiG-29K/KUB are
1) more composites, as 30-35%
2) 6000 instead of 5000 h airframe life
3) two additional hard-points
4) better avionics, bigger displays
5) Zhuk-AE
6) Unfolded wings
7) Unstraighten chassis
8) OLS much more advanced
9) MAWS
10) TVN

But the keyword is 'optional', because there is offered a 'median' variant MiG-29M/M2 with the MiG-29K/KUB airframe only without folding wings and with more simple avionics. So, they seemingly remained the choice rights to a customer. It's according to the materials in Russian 'Take-Off' journal, a very reliable source. Kartic, I think, that what you want to say is most close to MiG-29M/M2 version. It could be produced without any upgrade in the manufacturing line, so no need to wait till 2013 when Sokol plant will be ready for MiG-35 production, but it could be started in Lukhovitsy just together with MiG-29K/KUB.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3282
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kakkaji » 11 Oct 2009 09:20

Referring to these pictures of Mig-35 that Igorr posted on Oct.3rd:

Excellent pics of the Mig-35

I am surprised nobody commented on how smoky the engines still are. Right from the take-off, in almost every frame, you can see thick smoke coming out of the twin engines. In some of the frames, the whole aircraft is covered in smoke. :eek:

I thought the smoky engines issue was taken care of in the new version of the Mig's engines. So what happened?

In contrast, if you look at the video of demo of the F-18, there is hardly any visible smoke.

Am I misinterpreting the pictures?

VijayKumarSinha
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 16 Aug 2009 21:22

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby VijayKumarSinha » 11 Oct 2009 09:33

Kakkaji wrote:I am surprised nobody commented on how smoky the engines still are. Right from the take-off, in almost every frame, you can see thick smoke coming out of the twin engines. In some of the frames, the whole aircraft is covered in smoke. :eek:

I thought the smoky engines issue was taken care of in the new version of the Mig's engines. So what happened?

In contrast, if you look at the video of demo of the F-18, there is hardly any visible smoke.

Am I misinterpreting the pictures?



Kakaji, that smoke is not coming out of the engines. It's coming from the contraption attached to the wing, its used in Airshows all the time. Sometimes they use colored smoke.
Last edited by VijayKumarSinha on 11 Oct 2009 09:41, edited 2 times in total.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3282
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kakkaji » 11 Oct 2009 09:36

VijayKumarSinha wrote:Kakaji, that's smoke is not coming out of the engines. It's coming from the contraption attached to the wing, its used in Airshows all the time. Sometimes they use colored smoke.


OK. Thanks for explaining that.

Cheers

vijyeta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 01 May 2006 03:10
Location: Olympus Mons

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby vijyeta » 11 Oct 2009 09:39

VijayKumarSinha wrote:
Kakaji, that's smoke is not coming out of the engines.....


If that had been 'smoke', this thread would have gone up in 'flames' by now. :lol:

VijayKumarSinha
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 16 Aug 2009 21:22

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby VijayKumarSinha » 11 Oct 2009 09:51

vijyeta wrote:
VijayKumarSinha wrote:
Kakaji, that's smoke is not coming out of the engines.....


If that had been 'smoke', this thread would have gone up in 'flames' by now. :lol:



lol

But, about the paintees, I am wondering why in 'The Jet Set', Som ji didn't get to fly on them. They had him fly in the unattees instead.

Vishnu
BRFite
Posts: 272
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Vishnu » 11 Oct 2009 10:33

Guruji ... I did fly on the MiG 35 in the Jet Set ... In fact, I have flown on the jet twice (apparently the first "non Russian" to fly on the aircraft) and I can vouch for the fact that there is no black smoke coming from the engines. For the millionth time, there is no black smoke coming from the engines.

Cheers
Vishnu

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17001
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 11 Oct 2009 10:49

For the millionth time, there is no black smoke coming from the engines.

so they have changed the colour of the smoke ? it's white now ?
good to know that ! :mrgreen:

/sorry, couldn't resist. :P

mahesh Sankar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 9
Joined: 11 Oct 2009 10:51

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby mahesh Sankar » 11 Oct 2009 10:56

:| :| :| :|

VijayKumarSinha
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 16 Aug 2009 21:22

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby VijayKumarSinha » 11 Oct 2009 11:24

Vishnu wrote:Guruji ... I did fly on the MiG 35 in the Jet Set ... In fact, I have flown on the jet twice (apparently the first "non Russian" to fly on the aircraft) and I can vouch for the fact that there is no black smoke coming from the engines. For the millionth time, there is no black smoke coming from the engines.

Cheers
Vishnu


Sorry som ji, my bad i had confused this video for 'the jet set' video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVn_-drt ... _embedded#

But, it wasn't me who had any questions about the Mig-29 smoke - ever.

In other defence news, I am your biggest fan, keep up the good work :wink:

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Katare » 12 Oct 2009 03:19

Rahul M wrote:
For the millionth time, there is no black smoke coming from the engines.

so they have changed the colour of the smoke ? it's white now ?
good to know that ! :mrgreen:

/sorry, couldn't resist. :P


Rahul throws a PJ :mrgreen:

Black smoke is partially burned (sub-stoichiometric oxidation) fuel while light color smoke is usually water molecules condensing on hot exhaust gas in certain geographic areas.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 12 Oct 2009 04:51

Kakkaji wrote:Referring to these pictures of Mig-35 that Igorr posted on Oct.3rd:

Excellent pics of the Mig-35

I am surprised nobody commented on how smoky the engines still are. Right from the take-off, in almost every frame, you can see thick smoke coming out of the twin engines. In some of the frames, the whole aircraft is covered in smoke. :eek:

I thought the smoky engines issue was taken care of in the new version of the Mig's engines. So what happened?

In contrast, if you look at the video of demo of the F-18, there is hardly any visible smoke.

Am I misinterpreting the pictures?


you can't tell the difference between smoke from the engine and deliberate use of smoke on wing mounted smoke-generators to allow for a better air show display ? wow..

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 855
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby krishna_krishna » 12 Oct 2009 08:00

Hello Vishnu,

I wanted to bring this to your attention. Can you check the below pic of Mig-29 KUB. I remember you having an ride in the new plane that rolled out. The pic has the soviet red star half painted and also the airframe looks old. Any chance russians giving the old ones to the navy with a paint job ?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... C_0514.JPG

Vishnu
BRFite
Posts: 272
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Vishnu » 12 Oct 2009 08:41

Hi ... I flew on the MiG 35 and an old MiG 29 ... not the KUB ... though I was in Russia for the prototype roll out and first public flight of the jet. There is a full complement of Indian Navy officers based in Russia looking at every aspect of the induction, training etc of the MiG 29 KUB ... I wouldnt worry about them giving us old birds. In fact ... there are visible structural changes on the KUB ... ie the undercarriage. Also, remember, the first KUB built for the Indian Navy was in Russian colours when it was displayed at the Moscow air show two years ago.

Cheers
Vishnu


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests