Indian Military Aviation

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 10 Feb 2011 09:33

Kartik, my first thoughts were wth...???

like with the other aircraft, the made our MiGs a bit more uglier

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 10 Feb 2011 10:01

fatback! fatback!

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 10 Feb 2011 10:18

they first painted green over IAF blue, giving it a two tone paint scheme (maybe ran out of paint).

then added that schoolbag at the back this what used to be a iconic bird.

man its a Mig 29 from a horror movie.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Feb 2011 10:27

What is that school bag for? Extra fuel? Man, talk about taking a graceful bird and turning it into an ugly ducking

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 10 Feb 2011 10:28

Is that yellow thing on spine an extra ?
Why do you need it be beautiful anyway ?

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 10 Feb 2011 11:30

jamwal wrote:Is that yellow thing on spine an extra ?
Why do you need it be beautiful anyway ?

Indeed it is saar, I believe that spine is what will house most of the extra fuel and may be some avionics as well (not completely sure abt the avionics)

I still think that the Fulcrum is as beautiful as ever...

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 10 Feb 2011 11:34

Jagan wrote:Kartik, my first thoughts were wth...???

like with the other aircraft, the made our MiGs a bit more uglier

haha..yes, its not as beautiful as our earlier MiGs were, but it overcomes a key weakness doesn't it ? So, beauty lost, but capability gained. I guess I'd be okay to trade it this one time !

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Feb 2011 11:43

Duplicate. Self Deleted

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Feb 2011 11:45

That used to be one of the most beautiful planes ever built.

A big part of my love for fighters as I was growing up.

The Block-60 killed the beautiful looks of F-16, and this upgrade has butchered the lovely curves of the Mig-29.

How does it affect the aerodynamics of the plane?
I think the hump will act as conformal tanks: creating lift for itself, and being a low drag solution.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 10 Feb 2011 11:51

putnanja wrote:What is that school bag for? Extra fuel? Man, talk about taking a graceful bird and turning it into an ugly ducking

its very similar to the MiG-29SMT fatback with the saddle tank adding 950 ltrs of fuel. The saddle tank itself can be removed in about 2 hours and be replaced with skin panels instead. Although, it has a very small drag penalty and I can't see why any pilot wouldn't want 950 ltrs of internal fuel if he could do away with a dorsal drop tank that imposes a maneuvering penalty (the MiG-29 with dorsal tank is limited to lower Gs) and also drag.

the image is that of MiG-29SMT that Algeria eventually returned to Russia claiming poor manufacturing quality. Russia now operates those 36 MiG-29SMTs.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 10 Feb 2011 11:52

Uggh. They turned the most beautiful fighter in IAF inventory and made it ugly.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 10 Feb 2011 11:55

the retractable IFR probe must be on the other side..this upgrade was supposed to include it and so it must be similar to the one in this picture

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 10 Feb 2011 11:56

IAF is really adding muscle to its South Indian operations.Link

The Indian Air Force (IAF) will deploy more low-level aerial surveillance systems in the peninsular region to guard the country's 4,000-km-long coastline against hostile low-flying aircraft, gliders, and unmanned surveillance drones.

They said the IAF's capability to project its power in the Indian Ocean region would grow exponentially with the commissioning of the proposed full-fledged military airfield at Kayathar in Tirunelveli district in Tamil Nadu.

The 1,700-acre facility will possibly house a range of modern IAF assets, including at least three squadrons of modern multi-role fighter aircraft, helicopter gunships, air-to-air refuelling aircraft, transport planes, and ground-based air-defence systems.

The proposed base will have at least 120 officers and nearly 2,000 men.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 10 Feb 2011 11:58

Kartik wrote:
putnanja wrote:What is that school bag for? Extra fuel? Man, talk about taking a graceful bird and turning it into an ugly ducking
its very similar to the MiG-29SMT fatback with the saddle tank adding 950 ltrs of fuel. The saddle tank itself can be removed in about 2 hours and be replaced with skin panels instead. Although, it has a very small drag penalty and I can't see why any pilot wouldn't want 950 ltrs of internal fuel if he could do away with a dorsal drop tank that imposes a maneuvering penalty (the MiG-29 with dorsal tank is limited to lower Gs) and also drag.

the image is that of MiG-29SMT that Algeria eventually returned to Russia claiming poor manufacturing quality. Russia now operates those 36 MiG-29SMTs.

Thanks for the info Kartik. Any idea what the range is with this extra fuel?

I miss that graceful swan neck. It was a beauty, no doubt about it!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Feb 2011 12:20

Yep the dorsal spine carries additional fuel and makes the classic Mig-29 look ugly Olga but then its there to do a job and the trade off is in favour of more fuel , I have not seen or come across reports of the dorsal spine denting its maneuvering/agility capability of Mig-29 in combat , except for the ugly looks it adds.

But considering 29UPG is adding multirole capability with a new Series-3 engine , the additional fuel will give it longer legs.

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 10 Feb 2011 12:33

Can anybody give a review on IJT what's the weight,payload,engine power and avionics from aeroindia 11 ?

ranjithnath · Post by **ranjithnath** » 10 Feb 2011 22:15

what is that thing poking out just below the right veritcal stabilizer??

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Feb 2011 23:00

all the charm and friendly looks of a overfed king cobra with raised hood.

that bar below the vertical tail houses some radio antennas I think. similar exists in top half of jaguar tail.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 11 Feb 2011 00:39

Re. the SMT upgrade:

There are two strap on dorsal tanks

Forward tank (large one) carries - 1100kg of fuel
Aft tank carries - 375 odd kg - total of 1475kg extra fuel or 1880 liters.
It is pretty much the same otherwise - 3500kg.

So approximate fuel capacity has increased considerably to almost 5000kg. Range is estimated at 1800 - 2100km in different sources on internal fuel alone.

External payload ~ 5000kg.

MTOW = 20300kg.

The RD 33 series 3M mainly increase engine life to 2000 hours. 8300kgf thrust in max reheat, and upto 8700kgf in emergency reheat.

Empty weight is hard to guess on this bird. The strapons will surely add weight, at the same time adding composites to the structure in varioius places might help reduce the weight. My guess would be around 11500kg at most. Based on figures above (from Y. Gordon & Rosobronexport catalog), we can surmise that empty is 20300kg - 5000 - 5000 = 11300kg. TWR will be good although not as great as the original or the MiG-35.

# of pylons stay the same (6), but now it can carry 3 EFTs and a variety of russian PGMs.

Of course all of this is based on the old SMT upgrade circa 1997. In the years since, I am sure some more changes might have been done.

At least in terms of avionics, sensors and ECM gear, there will be a distinct difference - expect commonality with the MiG-29K but with the possibility of an LDP integration.

CM.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Feb 2011 01:14

ranjithnath wrote:what is that thing poking out just below the right veritcal stabilizer??

Provision for ECM antenna - see my post on the LCA thread. There are likely to be a couple more apertures located in the airframe for full coverage (hemisphere)

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Feb 2011 01:26

Cain Marko wrote:Re. the SMT upgrade:

There are two strap on dorsal tanks

Forward tank (large one) carries - 1100kg of fuel
Aft tank carries - 375 odd kg - total of 1475kg extra fuel or 1880 liters.
It is pretty much the same otherwise - 3500kg.

So approximate fuel capacity has increased considerably to almost 5000kg. Range is estimated at 1800 - 2100km in different sources on internal fuel alone.

External payload ~ 5000kg.

MTOW = 20300kg.

The RD 33 series 3M mainly increase engine life to 2000 hours. 8300kgf thrust in max reheat, and upto 8700kgf in emergency reheat.

Empty weight is hard to guess on this bird. The strapons will surely add weight, at the same time adding composites to the structure in varioius places might help reduce the weight. My guess would be around 11500kg at most. Based on figures above (from Y. Gordon & Rosobronexport catalog), we can surmise that empty is 20300kg - 5000 - 5000 = 11300kg. TWR will be good although not as great as the original or the MiG-35.

# of pylons stay the same (6), but now it can carry 3 EFTs and a variety of russian PGMs.

Of course all of this is based on the old SMT upgrade circa 1997. In the years since, I am sure some more changes might have been done.

At least in terms of avionics, sensors and ECM gear, there will be a distinct difference - expect commonality with the MiG-29K but with the possibility of an LDP integration.

CM.

Brochures from chor-Gupta
Might be 2 extra pylons?

Several differences though
- New Russian OLS same as on MiG-35 jet
- Indian RWR/ECM
- Thales IFF
- Probably Sigma-95INS
- Indian radios, avionics such as HAL mission computer
Other third party equipment also, probably
Upgraded Zhuk radar
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 3d39c241e1
-Series 3 RD-33 3M engines with BARK Fadec controls

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 11 Feb 2011 04:31

Garus I reckon that the big hump tank that our SMTs will carry is to my untrained eye one of the most streamlined CFTs around and it would not affect the aerodynamics of the Fulcrum....what say?

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 11 Feb 2011 04:37

^^
Is it confirmed that it is indeed CFT? It looks more like a structural change in dorsal spline to me. SMT incorporates similar structural changes.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 11 Feb 2011 05:35

Sid wrote:they first painted green over IAF blue, giving it a two tone paint scheme (maybe ran out of paint).

then added that schoolbag at the back this what used to be a iconic bird.

man its a Mig 29 from a horror movie.

its not green color,they but removed the paint from surface of aircraft

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 11 Feb 2011 05:45

Karan M wrote:Several differences though
- New Russian OLS same as on MiG-35 jet
- Indian RWR/ECM
- Thales IFF
- Probably Sigma-95INS
- Indian radios, avionics such as HAL mission computer
Other third party equipment also, probably
Upgraded Zhuk radar
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 3d39c241e1
-Series 3 RD-33 3M engines with BARK Fadec controls

most of the avionics are Russian in the aircraft upgraded in Russia but once upgrade starts in India it may have several Indian avionics because of cost saving.

srai · Post by **srai** » 11 Feb 2011 05:49

Kartik wrote:
Jagan wrote:Kartik, my first thoughts were wth...???

like with the other aircraft, the made our MiGs a bit more uglier
haha..yes, its not as beautiful as our earlier MiGs were, but it overcomes a key weakness doesn't it ? So, beauty lost, but capability gained. I guess I'd be okay to trade it this one time !

... IAF is already married to her ... so little weight gain is ok

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Feb 2011 06:17

Hump certainly is a CFT and it seems to be made from composites , Even if with the CFT and a large single drop tank if Mig-29 manages to get F-16 Block50 like multi role capability and agility then its worth it.

I do not think they will get new HP ( PSG claims it will but lets see ) ,after all its a 80's built Mig-29 design and there will be a limit on the structural changes it can do.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 11 Feb 2011 06:33

Dunno about Sengupta's antics - he had claimed that the Mk1 Tejas would have the 2052 remember? Still, ther original SMT plan was to have 8 hps under the wings. The fuel capacity was also to be increased by additional tanks by removing dorsal intakes, in the wings and towards the tail sting. Plenty of punch in that original plan, but MAPO decideced it was too drastic and might compromise the performance of the bird. So the revised plan is what we see in the SMT program (as seen from Roosi birds).

I fully expect a few improvements over the revised plan, but still they won't waste too much time/money on it. THis is clear from the fact that the IAF did not choose an uber upgrade - no RD 33MK, no TVC (available on MK and ser3M), no AESA etc. Still, it makes the fulcrum far more capable than it originally was.

Andy san, yes, I doubt its aerodynamic capability will be compromised. And if it is, the compromise will be slight - nothing over the top, which might not be overcome by that emergency reheat if required. Still, wingloading will be hurt (although the fulcrum never was designed to get too much lift from there - the LERX and lifting body fuselage provide ample lift), and TWR as well (unless the emergency reheat is used).

However, this is purely speculation on my part, rosoboronexport and Gordon do not suggest that there is any compromise whatever. NTOW is only 500kg more than fulcrum A, and this could very well be because of additional fuel.

CM.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 11 Feb 2011 06:36

Austin wrote:Hump certainly is a CFT and it seems to be made from composites , Even if with the CFT and a large single drop tank if Mig-29 manages to get F-16 Block50 like multi role capability and agility then its worth it.

I do not think they will get new HP ( PSG claims it will but lets see ) ,after all its a 80's built Mig-29 design and there will be a limit on the structural changes it can do.

its not CFT but permanent change in structural shape to accommodate more fuel to give aircraft longer legs with better engines and we have to wait to know which HMS has been selected which can be same one used with 29K.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Feb 2011 06:50

Baldev wrote:ts not CFT but permanent change in structural shape to accommodate more fuel to give aircraft longer legs with better engines and we have to wait to know which HMS has been selected which can be same one used with 29K.

Yes thats right those are permanent structural changes , it would be nice if they would standardise on TopOwl HMD for the 29's.

CM mentioned else where that old 29 suffer from low fuel mass fraction , so any amount of fuel increase for the old 29 will do it lot good

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 11 Feb 2011 08:25

Austin wrote:CM mentioned else where that old 29 suffer from low fuel mass fraction , so any amount of fuel increase for the old 29 will do it lot good

actually older engines sucked more fuel compared to newer engines so range was less but now with increases fuel fraction and newer engines it will be better.

but these mig29s are not fly by wire when comparing to m2000. and as far as LDP integration is concerned not all aircrafts needs to carry it or drop lgb but its got better FLIR to do many tasks of LDP.but yes a separate pod like one on mig35 air intake would be best option for air to ground operation.

by the time m2000 upgrade starts mig29 upgrade would be finished.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 11 Feb 2011 08:31

srai wrote:
Kartik wrote: haha..yes, its not as beautiful as our earlier MiGs were, but it overcomes a key weakness doesn't it ? So, beauty lost, but capability gained. I guess I'd be okay to trade it this one time !
... IAF is already married to her ... so little weight gain is ok

But no so on the desi beauty since not yet married no ? IAF insists on it going on a diet and now she'll be longer too !:P

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 11 Feb 2011 08:38

Cain Marko wrote:Andy san, yes, I doubt its aerodynamic capability will be compromised. And if it is, the compromise will be slight - nothing over the top, which might not be overcome by that emergency reheat if required. Still, wingloading will be hurt (although the fulcrum never was designed to get too much lift from there - the LERX and lifting body fuselage provide ample lift), and TWR as well (unless the emergency reheat is used).

CM.

Exactly CM mian and also I figured given that phat

dorsal tank sits right behind the raised neck of the fulcrum thus it will not be giving increased exposure in the slip stream from a frontal aspect given the that the total volume of the front cockpit part will cover up the dorsal tank and thus the tank will still be in the shadow of the neck...

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Feb 2011 08:39

Baldev wrote:actually older engines sucked more fuel compared to newer engines so range was less but now with increases fuel fraction and newer engines it will be better.

Are you sure it sucked more fuel or the low fuel mass fraction just made the RD-33 look the real culprit and the smoky engine didnt help improve its image , the real culprit is the low fuel mass fraction and not the RD-33 engine , hence the hump.

The Series 3 iirc helps with low smoke combuster and bettwe TBO rest all specs is similar to RD-33.

but these mig29s are not fly by wire when comparing to m2000. and as far as LDP integration is concerned not all aircrafts needs to carry it or drop lgb but its got better FLIR to do many tasks of LDP.but yes a separate pod like one on mig35 air intake would be best option for air to ground operation.

If they opt for an Open Architecture Framework , they can integrate litening or any thing they want to with the UPG as long as it doesnt crosses the structural integrity.

by the time m2000 upgrade starts mig29 upgrade would be finished.

After the rip off they take their own time to complete it , after all the french have to digest the big money they made from the Delicate Darling

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 11 Feb 2011 08:43

Cain Marko wrote:Dunno about Sengupta's antics - he had claimed that the Mk1 Tejas would have the 2052 remember? Still, ther original SMT plan was to have 8 hps under the wings. The fuel capacity was also to be increased by additional tanks by removing dorsal intakes, in the wings and towards the tail sting. Plenty of punch in that original plan, but MAPO decideced it was too drastic and might compromise the performance of the bird. So the revised plan is what we see in the SMT program (as seen from Roosi birds).

Would'nt put any weight on what Chorgupta said. He also claimed with certainty that the IN's second batch of MiG-29Ks would feature AESA radars.

Anyway, I just hope that they don't tinker around too much with the basic MiG-29 airframe to add fuel or more hardpoints. The additional weight gain will impact its superlative performance. IFR probe would mean it can be refuelled in mid-air so range will not be the biggest bugbear on the MiG-29..although even with probe internal fuel is an issue if tankers are in short supply then it can be a problem..How much additional thrust does the RD-33 Ser 3 generate ?

I fully expect a few improvements over the revised plan, but still they won't waste too much time/money on it. THis is clear from the fact that the IAF did not choose an uber upgrade - no RD 33MK, no TVC (available on MK and ser3M), no AESA etc. Still, it makes the fulcrum far more capable than it originally was.

exactly. Too much work, too much cost for a fighter that will be around for another 15 years at most.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 11 Feb 2011 08:50

Baldev wrote:
Austin wrote:Hump certainly is a CFT and it seems to be made from composites , Even if with the CFT and a large single drop tank if Mig-29 manages to get F-16 Block50 like multi role capability and agility then its worth it.

I do not think they will get new HP ( PSG claims it will but lets see ) ,after all its a 80's built Mig-29 design and there will be a limit on the structural changes it can do.
its not CFT but permanent change in structural shape to accommodate more fuel to give aircraft longer legs with better engines and we have to wait to know which HMS has been selected which can be same one used with 29K.

Nope. Its bolted on and so it is not a permanent change. Had it been riveted on then it would've been a permanent change

As you can see clearly, it is bolted on to the skin.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 11 Feb 2011 09:20

Baldev wrote:
but these mig29s are not fly by wire when comparing to m2000.

Be that as it may... in the first DACT exercise between IAF M2ks and Mig-29s, the Mig-29 comprehensively outflew the M2k. You can read AVM Masand's article in vayu regarding it.
The Mig-29's USP was always the extra power that the pilot has at his disposal. The M2k on the other hand is a little underpowered. It's biggest weakness was it's extremely limited range which is being remedied with the SMT upgrade. With a new radar and avionics it will be quite a handful. The jingo in me is dreaming about future IAF DACT exercises pitting the Mig-29,the LCA Mk2, upgraded Mirages and the MRCA against each other.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 11 Feb 2011 16:04

IAF seeks Government sanction for more fighter aircraft squadrons

Preparing itself for a two-front war scenario, the Indian Air Force (IAF) has sent a proposal to the Defence Ministry to increase its sanctioned fighter aircraft strength from 39.5 to 45 squadrons.

"We have proposed to increase our squadron strength from 39.5 to 45 squadrons and it is under consideration of the Defence Ministry," IAF sources told PTI here.

The current squadron strength of the force is 33. A squadron comprises around 18 to 20 aircraft.In view of increasing Chinese military deployments along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the IAF has been strengthening its presence in the northeastern sector and has plans of deploying four squadrons of the air superiority Su-30 MKI fighter aircraft there by 2015.

Asked about the time-frame in which the IAF was looking to achieve these numbers, they said the future acquisitions would depend on the sanctions accorded to the service by the Government.

Under its modernisation plans, air bases on the western front are also being equipped with modern airfield infrastructure and new fighter planes.

The IAF has plans of inducting more than 350 fighter jet aircraft by the end of this decade which includes the 126 multi-role combat planes (M-MRCA), over 160 new Su-30MKIs and over 140 indigenously-built Light Combat Aircraft (LCA).

The contract for the new Su-30s has already been signed and the orders for 126 M-MRCA are expected to be placed by the end of September this year.

Six aircraft including Russian MiG-35, American F-16 and F/A-18, Swedish Gripen, European Eurofighter and French Rafale are in the race for the M-MRCA contract, which is expected to cost USD 11 billion.

The IAF is also phasing out its old Russian-origin fleet of MiG aircraft -- the 21, 23 and 27 series. The oldest MiG-21 Type-77 is likely to be decommissioned by the end of next year.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 11 Feb 2011 18:14

nachiket wrote:
Baldev wrote:
but these mig29s are not fly by wire when comparing to m2000.
Be that as it may... in the first DACT exercise between IAF M2ks and Mig-29s, the Mig-29 comprehensively outflew the M2k. You can read AVM Masand's article in vayu regarding it.
The Mig-29's USP was always the extra power that the pilot has at his disposal. The M2k on the other hand is a little underpowered. It's biggest weakness was it's extremely limited range which is being remedied with the SMT upgrade. With a new radar and avionics it will be quite a handful. The jingo in me is dreaming about future IAF DACT exercises pitting the Mig-29,the LCA Mk2, upgraded Mirages and the MRCA against each other.

LCA,M2000,MIG29 will carry same air to air armament 4 bvr and 2 wvr and radars of similar capability.

but hardpoints on lca not going to be increased and same for paylaod.while gripen ng with f414 carries more paylaod compared to lca mk2.

sarabpal.s · Post by **sarabpal.s** » 11 Feb 2011 18:22

Sagar G wrote:IAF seeks Government sanction for more fighter aircraft squadrons

Preparing itself for a two-front war scenario, the Indian Air Force (IAF) has sent a proposal to the Defence Ministry to increase its sanctioned fighter aircraft strength from 39.5 to 45 squadrons.

The IAF is also phasing out its old Russian-origin fleet of MiG aircraft -- the 21, 23 and 27 series. The oldest MiG-21 Type-77 is likely to be decommissioned by the end of next year.

Two para opposite to each other.

How can we have 45 squadrons if we have to offload some some old planes with new one.