http://thebharatmilitaryreview.blogspot ... g-off.html


Vishnu Som has already mentioned in keypubs that its qualified for 1 engine landingSingha wrote:reason may be due to lack of 1-engine clearance the fuel tank modes are not used yet in IN
I doubt IN or UAC would publish such data , Such data can only come from the user .....I have yet to see similar data from SHAR from IN if there exisit such data it would be from BA'sbrar_w wrote:Is there any range/payload or range/payload+loiter data on the Mig-29K off of the Vik? Ferry range is useful but again, not tactically relevant since whats important is how far can it go with a given fuel and weapons load.
Something like this:
Singha wrote:800km indicates 1600km flying time, 2 hrs @ 800kmph high altitude profile?
that would be for a in-and-out strike mission with no loitering.
for a air defence patrol mission would the eqn be different as in go 250km out (20 mins), loiter for 80 mins and then return for 20 mins with some reserve....? thats a very low endurance and given the small number of Mig29k onboard is not sustainable for long to keep up CAPs.
the real eqn will be with 6 AAM (4 bvr, 2 small) around 2 tons
I have never seen the Mig29K with drop tanks - the hornets can take off and land with 3 drop tanks.
this is a critical issue if the 29K cannot have drop tanks
we need 3 hour time on station 250km out with a pair of Mig29K, and radar scanning out some 500+km to give enough time for another pair of Mig29k to take off and join them if needed.
brar_w wrote:Is there any range/payload or range/payload+loiter data on the Mig-29K off of the Vik? Ferry range is useful but again, not tactically relevant since whats important is how far can it go with a given fuel and weapons load.
Something like this:
Most if not all OEM's that offer fighter aircraft would be easily able to provide these charts. Most will offer similar charts for various mission requirements and one can dig up similar charts from lockheed, dassault and Boeing...Austin wrote:
I doubt IN or UAC would publish such data , Such data can only come from the user .....I have yet to see similar data from SHAR from IN if there exisit such data it would be from BA's
I hve yet to see such range/payload chart for MKI , never seen IAF releasing such data for even 29 or 2000brar_w wrote:Most if not all OEM's that offer fighter aircraft would be easily able to provide these charts. Most will offer similar charts for various mission requirements and one can dig up similar charts from lockheed, dassault and Boeing...Austin wrote:
I doubt IN or UAC would publish such data , Such data can only come from the user .....I have yet to see similar data from SHAR from IN if there exisit such data it would be from BA's
That's a gross exaggeration. While Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar & Thailand have small air forces, the same doesn't apply to their Flanker heavy Malaysian & Indonesian neighbours. Not to mention Singapore that fields a very well trained and well equipped air force (one that may well field a fifth gen fighter before us).Shreeman wrote:I remain amazed at how ill treated the flagship and her complement are in this thread. That group alone can take care of all the south and east, with more capability than all the banana countries there combined.
That's a fantasy. No western state has any interest in challenging India within the IOR. Quite the opposite in fact.A 100 platform force in the south is not something even the western challenge can cover for. And if even a small tiny small number make past the defenders then the western challenge will disappear overnight like the famous blazes of 71.
Equally one may wish to give a similar level of respect to Chinese platforms that are entering service in the region, driven by/equipped with similar levels of technology (in addition to the same Russian engine).This is an incredibly capable platform. No less than CdG (nuclear enduance buys them zilch). Lets not shit and spit on the house thousands will live in for decades to come. Read up a bit. Respect it just the same as the other Rs even if its russian.
I haven't either although some information may be available for the Su-27 (I'd have to look). In the west this information comes from two main sources :Austin wrote:
I hve yet to see such range/payload chart for MKI , never seen IAF releasing such data for even 29 or 2000
Internal fuel was increased from 3,340 kg to 4,560 kg, to give a combat radius of 850 km (531 mi). The combat radius can be increased to 1,300 kilometers with 3 underwing fuel drop tanks. The maximum weight of the aircraft grew from 19.5 to 22.4 t, to allow for increased payloads.[34] The MiG-29KUB two-seat fighter, intended for pilot training, can also conduct combat missions identical to the single-seat fighter.
[/quote]NRao wrote: wiki, MiG-29K:
Internal fuel was increased from 3,340 kg to 4,560 kg, to give a combat radius of 850 km (531 mi). The combat radius can be increased to 1,300 kilometers with 3 underwing fuel drop tanks. The maximum weight of the aircraft grew from 19.5 to 22.4 t, to allow for increased payloads.[34] The MiG-29KUB two-seat fighter, intended for pilot training, can also conduct combat missions identical to the single-seat fighter.
Because people have various agenda (NLCA or Rafale M) and bashing one product serves their agenda. Rather than realizing currently fulcrum is only AC currently available to navy that can operate from ski jump, we already missed out on acquiring second hand SHAR and decision by IAF to go with Rafale sealed the door for The navy to acquire F18s. N LCA for better or worse is decade away from reaching operational status.Shreeman wrote:I remain amazed at how ill treated the flagship and her complement are in this thread. That group alone can take care of all the south and east, with more capability than all the banana countries there combined. This is not a british hand me down showpiece. It is a remarkable jump from having a complement of 6 to a complement of 25 sea+20 land today, and possibly twice as many when NLCA enters the mix.
This is an incredibly capable platform. No less than CdG (nuclear enduance buys them zilch). Lets not shit and spit on the house thousands will live in for decades to come. Read up a bit. Respect it just the same as the other Rs even if its russian.
Viv,Viv S wrote:That's a gross exaggeration. While Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar & Thailand have small air forces, the same doesn't apply to their Flanker heavy Malaysian & Indonesian neighbours. Not to mention Singapore that fields a very well trained and well equipped air force (one that may well field a fifth gen fighter before us).Shreeman wrote:I remain amazed at how ill treated the flagship and her complement are in this thread. That group alone can take care of all the south and east, with more capability than all the banana countries there combined.
And in any event, our primary threat lies North-West and North-East. And their fighter fleets are nothing to scoff at either.
That's a fantasy. No western state has any interest in challenging India within the IOR. Quite the opposite in fact.A 100 platform force in the south is not something even the western challenge can cover for. And if even a small tiny small number make past the defenders then the western challenge will disappear overnight like the famous blazes of 71.
Equally one may wish to give a similar level of respect to Chinese platforms that are entering service in the region, driven by/equipped with similar levels of technology (in addition to the same Russian engine).This is an incredibly capable platform. No less than CdG (nuclear enduance buys them zilch). Lets not shit and spit on the house thousands will live in for decades to come. Read up a bit. Respect it just the same as the other Rs even if its russian.
Considering that the West is the top dog in naval warfare, has full access to the Arabian ocean/Bay of Bengal and is not stopping RnD in naval warfare - this line of thinking is not very smart. Like talk of American missiles on Rafale platform, that is the use of policies that are dependent on the top dog when ideally our options should be independent of interests of others, including the top dog. The most of the talk in the west is about how to make Indian navy a challenge to Chinese navy - a part of challenge etc. A Russian fighter jet (Mig 29K) with Russian A-to-A missile would not have to worry about alphabet soup binding agreements, too, such an option is available.That's a fantasy. No western state has any interest in challenging India within the IOR. Quite the opposite in fact.
Problem is to fit Super rapid you need to design the vessel around that req originally for Vik. She was to carry orig mix of Kashtan and vl shtil (later on added to design). After navy saw the price tag and had sticker shock we decided to fit our own. Too late for anything other than barak 1 and ak 630 I don't believe that it was meant to carry barak 8 since I don't where it could have been fitted.Singha wrote:4 x 76mm super-rapid Oto guns with anti missile ammo would have extended the protection bubble from 2km to 8km.
In this instance the fitment basically comes out of the box from ins godavari. This is a prudent decision as there was no other solution available. Barak-8 is coming online now and that too on a mf-star complex.John wrote:....Too late for anything other than barak 1 and ak 630 I don't believe that it was meant to carry barak 8 since I don't where it could have been fitted.
There is only one STGR to guide ak 630 and barak which is pretty big limitation.
Singha wrote:we need 3 hour time on station 250km out with a pair of Mig29K, and radar scanning out some 500+km to give enough time for another pair of Mig29k to take off and join them if needed.
Don't disagree. This is what I have from from Yefim Gordon's 2007 book for the 29K (original late 80s version - these loads were tested)brar_w wrote:Neither the M2K, nor the F-16 are carrier borne aircraft. Nor do they take off from a ski jump and have range/payload considerations that are important when carrying a lot of bags. Can the Mig-29K take off in the configuration in the picture or even a pair of tanks, a decent weapons load from a carrier? I have no idea but it probably can take off with some extra fuel given certain missions and payloads but eventually its the carrier limitation and not the aircraft.
STGR serves as both target acquisition and illumination radar for Barak-1 and FCR for guns, without Fire control radar AK-630 are practically useless against any fast maneuvering targets. Ak-630 mated with EO are primarily used only for patrol boats and they have very limited Anti aircraft capability.Aditya G wrote:In this instance the fitment basically comes out of the box from ins godavari. This is a prudent decision as there was no other solution available. Barak-8 is coming online now and that too on a mf-star complex.John wrote:....Too late for anything other than barak 1 and ak 630 I don't believe that it was meant to carry barak 8 since I don't where it could have been fitted.
There is only one STGR to guide ak 630 and barak which is pretty big limitation.
I don't think stgr and ak-630 are connected as the former is an illuminator for barak missile. They seem to be connected to the eo sight.
Having said that 76 mm cannon fitments should be simple as we have retrofitted the same on several ships.
For an aircraft carrier, I would opine 16-32 LRSAM and 3-4 SRGM. For Vikramditya, there is lack of depth to mount SRGM, so AK-630 + LRSAM would be fine.Avinandan wrote:What would have been the optimum CIWS system for Vikramaditya in your opinion.
More than rate of fire, the ability to accurately guide is important. Which is why we replaced all MR-123 with Elta 2221 STGR. The original AK-630 gun is very capable and used by the MiG-27 to bust tanks like A-10 WarthogAvinandan wrote:Couldn't we choose the better double barrelled 'AK-630M-2 Duet'
Viraat is structurally old. Sea Harriers are presently more mature operationally than MiG-29K. They offer best A2A capability via ELta 2032 & Derby missile combination. They will not last until NLCA because UK has stopped manufacturing spares, and US AV-8B are manufactured to different standards, though presently certain spares are sourced from USmaxratul wrote:Question - once the Virat retires, will the Sea Harriers operate from the Vik until, say the NLCA is operational?
Original plan was fore & aft of bridge like INS Viraat Barak-1 fit.John wrote:I don't believe that it was meant to carry barak 8 since I don't where it could have been fitted.
CMS ensures sensors & weapons are agnostic to each other. INS Delhi & Mysore use Fregat radars as primary tracking radar for cueing Barak-1. All other ships use Elta 2238.John wrote:STGR serves as both target acquisition and illumination radar for Barak-1 and FCR for guns, without Fire control radar AK-630 are practically useless against any fast maneuvering targets.
Not quite, Type 1135.6 Batch 2 ships have only EO sight. Imaging Infra Red offers much better resolution against missile's glowing engine and airframe heated by air resistance than radar that suffers from sea clutter and ECM. No way to diffuse the heat of a missile travelling at close to Mach or multiple Mach.John wrote:Ak-630 mated with EO are primarily used only for patrol boats and they have very limited Anti aircraft capability.
Thats pretty interesting !tsarkar wrote:INS Delhi & Mysore use Fregat radars as primary tracking radar for cueing Barak-1. All other ships use Elta 2238.
+1. Thanks for the analysisCain Marko wrote:....Remember this is for the older 29ks. The ones built for the IN are newer builds = more composite materials used, possibly more internal fuel capacity and payload capacity (as seen from the pic of 4 EFTs). MTOW is supposed to be 24500kg as per Rosboronexport catalog iirc.
My conclusion is that the 29k is no Shornet backed by CATS but it sure is no Shar either - A2A if it had to meet f-16s or mirages over the sea, they would be well enough prepared. For a strike mission, with long ranged munitions, they should pose a decent threat - but they are no bomb trucks. Overall, it would be very satisfactory performance for the IN - v.close to master jingo Singha sahib's requirements set forth above.
The 29K need to multi missile carrier rack so that their pylons can carry more than single R-73/R-77 perhaps 2-3 AAM per pylon , each of those rack are rated to carry many times over the weight of R-73/77Cain Marko wrote:- MTOW of 22+ tons from the carrier allowing it to carry 4 AAMs and 3 EFTs from station 3 - 195m on the Kuznetsov.
- could take off from the shorter stations 1 & 2 (approx. 105 meters) with an MTOW of 17500kg.
- NTOW with internal fuel + 4 missiles = 15500kg
- TOW with 3 EFTs + 4 missiles = 18500kg
- Combat radius ~ 850km on internal fuel
- Combat radius ~ 1300km w. 3 EFTs.
- On station time varied from 1.6 - 2.5 hours @ 250km radius.
- Max landing weight = 15300kg
- Max fuel load with 3 X EFTs was greater than 6500kg (internal capacity was appoximately 4500kg)
- CT - 1500 lts, inboard EFTS = 1150lts
Remember this is for the older 29ks. The ones built for the IN are newer builds = more composite materials used, possibly more internal fuel capacity and payload capacity (as seen from the pic of 4 EFTs). MTOW is supposed to be 24500kg as per Rosboronexport catalog iirc.
My conclusion is that the 29k is no Shornet backed by CATS but it sure is no Shar either - A2A if it had to meet f-16s or mirages over the sea, they would be well enough prepared. For a strike mission, with long ranged munitions, they should pose a decent threat - but they are no bomb trucks. Overall, it would be very satisfactory performance for the IN - v.close to master jingo Singha sahib's requirements set forth above.