Indian Military Aviation

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 25 Oct 2009 05:14

Katare wrote:I think one thing that goes against Mi26 is that it is way too big. Most missions actually do not require the size of Mi26. Although it comes handy when you need that additional musscle and capacity to lift heavy stuff in one go.

empty weight mi26= 28 tons
chinook = over 10 tons

so mi26 is not built for the task being compared with chinook
and chinook simply can't do what mi26 can do,its simple

e.g what AN124 and C5 can do C17/IL76 can't and vise versa

Kartik wrote:If you look at how widespread the use of the Chinook is in Afghanistan, its basically showing itself to be able to handle hot and high conditions very well. The CH-47F Chinook has a MTOW of 50000 lb and is equipped with high power engines giving it excellent ‘hot and high’ capability and is suitable for operations during day/night, visual and instrument meteorological conditions.

MI26 was sent to lift chinook from afghanistani hilly area

but yes there is MI26 upgrade available

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Oct 2009 14:48

Jagan wrote: Kartik, Air International seemed to have pulled a fast one on its readers like you. There were never more than four.

Some coincidence that this came up as I just updated this page yesterday http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircr ... Mi-26.html

Added later: Saw Juggi S post- same goes for Deccan Herald!

hmm..this month's Air International was supposed to have an article on the Jaguars at Ambala..the bookstores nearby still haven't gotten it though. Hopefully there won't be any mistakes in that.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 25 Oct 2009 16:16

Exercise Eastern Bridge update : IAF pilots fly unhindered over Oman sky
16:15 IST

Far removed is the terrain at Oman that IAF pilots of ‘Flaming Arrows’ and ‘Cobras’, the two Jaguar Squadrons, normally fly around their airbase - Gorakhpur, in India. Poor visibility, birds, obstructions and other restrictions usually make flying pretty much daunting. But for Jaguar pilots, low- flying remains raison d’être of their lethality.

At Oman, the local flying area around Royal Air Force of Oman (RAFO) Thumrait airbase is a terrain of a flatbed desert with hardened surface with unlimited visibility. Birds, if sighted, would normally be a welcome sight here unlike elsewhere, but is rarely encountered by the pilots.

All sixteen IAF pilots participating in exercise ‘Eastern Bridge’ with RAFO completed their local familiarization sorties ahead of the tactical part of the air exercise. To sum up, their low-flying experience at the very start of the exercise was simply, as most put it -exhilarating. Flying 500 feet above ground level seemed like flying almost mid-level felt some pilots, having done unhindered low -flying.

IAF pilots usually have their desert-flying experience around Jaisalmer and other airbases in Rajasthan. In many ways, the flying environment at Oman is not too different. But visibility is certainly markedly superior here felt the IAF pilots. However, at Oman the landscape changes rapidly from small mountains in the north, to flat terrain around Thumrait that changes over to coastal landscape in the south near Salalah, about 65 Kms south of Thumrait.

The sprawling flying infrastructure at RAFO Thumrait also impressed the IAF contingent. “It has just been three weeks since we got the runway resurfaced before your arrival,” informed a senior RAFO officer, reinforcing their commitment to the first-ever joint air exercise with IAF. Flight safety, however, remains paramount for both sides.

Thumrait is base to the only two RAFO Jaguar squadrons. RAFO pilots periodically visit the IAF airbase at Gorakhpur in India for simulator training and are familiar with some of their Indian counterparts. The camaraderie between the IAF- RAFO pilots in the crew room is all too palpable with both sides keen to switch over to their professional excellence in the air in the remaining days of Ex- Eastern Bridge.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 25 Oct 2009 22:04

shyamd wrote:Exercise Eastern Bridge update : IAF pilots fly unhindered over Oman sky
16:15 IST
Far removed is the terrain at Oman that IAF pilots of ‘Flaming Arrows’ and ‘Cobras’, the two Jaguar Squadrons, normally fly around their airbase - Gorakhpur, in India. Poor visibility, birds, obstructions and other restrictions usually make flying pretty much daunting. But for Jaguar pilots, low- flying remains raison d’être of their lethality.

At Oman, the local flying area around Royal Air Force of Oman (RAFO) Thumrait airbase is a terrain of a flatbed desert with hardened surface with unlimited visibility. Birds, if sighted, would normally be a welcome sight here unlike elsewhere, but is rarely encountered by the pilots.

All sixteen IAF pilots participating in exercise ‘Eastern Bridge’ with RAFO completed their local familiarization sorties ahead of the tactical part of the air exercise. To sum up, their low-flying experience at the very start of the exercise was simply, as most put it -exhilarating. Flying 500 feet above ground level seemed like flying almost mid-level felt some pilots, having done unhindered low -flying.

IAF pilots usually have their desert-flying experience around Jaisalmer and other airbases in Rajasthan. In many ways, the flying environment at Oman is not too different. But visibility is certainly markedly superior here felt the IAF pilots. However, at Oman the landscape changes rapidly from small mountains in the north, to flat terrain around Thumrait that changes over to coastal landscape in the south near Salalah, about 65 Kms south of Thumrait.

The sprawling flying infrastructure at RAFO Thumrait also impressed the IAF contingent. “It has just been three weeks since we got the runway resurfaced before your arrival,” informed a senior RAFO officer, reinforcing their commitment to the first-ever joint air exercise with IAF. Flight safety, however, remains paramount for both sides.

Thumrait is base to the only two RAFO Jaguar squadrons. RAFO pilots periodically visit the IAF airbase at Gorakhpur in India for simulator training and are familiar with some of their Indian counterparts. The camaraderie between the IAF- RAFO pilots in the crew room is all too palpable with both sides keen to switch over to their professional excellence in the air in the remaining days of Ex- Eastern Bridge.

Article says sixteen pilots, but according to livefist only 6 were sent...

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 26 Oct 2009 00:14

Bala Vignesh wrote:Article says sixteen pilots, but according to livefist only 6 were sent...

Six Jags were sent.
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/10/op ... ndian.html

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 26 Oct 2009 09:35

six birds for sixteen fliers.. that's less than a 1:2 ratio... is it the usual ratio... I mean i knew we didn't have 1:1 ratio but i thought it would be somewhere along 2:3 to 1:2...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Oct 2009 09:57

don't read too much into it. pilots will be rotated so that all gain experience.
some of the senior pilots probably won't fly too much but do evaluation and planning.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 26 Oct 2009 19:59

optical and IR aiming system for russian helicopters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmOowg2s ... re=related

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 27 Oct 2009 04:03

Okay, this one is for the oldies (and ofcourse noobies as well).

the old BR MiG-29 specs page says the following:

IAF MiG-29s can be armed with a range of Russian air-to-air missiles, like the close-combat R-60MK and R-73RDM2, the medium-range R-27RE1/TE1 and the long-range R-77RVV-AE. French air-to-air missiles such as the Super 530D and Magic-II can also be carried.

Pushpinder Singh Chopra, in a June 2001 AW&ST issue, said HAL had prepared production plans for 350 RD-33 turbofans at its Koraput plant. Upon further examination it was revealed that between 1990 and 1998, that HAL indeed had produced 350 RD-33 turbofans at its Koraput plant. On 15 July 1998, HAL delivered the first fully rebuilt and upgraded MiG-29 to the Indian Air Force. The upgrade has enabled the aircraft to fire the R-77RVV-AE (AA-12 Adder) air-to-air missile, also known as the Amraamski. A test of the Amraamski from an Indian Air Force MiG-29 was conducted in October 1998. Future upgrades will include a new avionics fit, with the N-109 radar being replaced by a Phazatron Zhuk-M radar. The aircraft is also being equipped for air-to-air refuelling to increase endurance.

My question (for Rakesh, if he is around)

*Upon further examination it was revealed that between 1990 and 1998, that HAL indeed had produced 350 RD-33 turbofans at its Koraput plant.
*On 15 July 1998, HAL delivered the first fully rebuilt and upgraded MiG-29 to the Indian Air Force.
*The upgrade has enabled the aircraft to fire the R-77RVV-AE (AA-12 Adder) air-to-air missile, also known as the Amraamski. A test of the Amraamski from an Indian Air Force MiG-29 was conducted in October 1998.

Are there any references for the above three statements?

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 27 Oct 2009 04:45

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 27 Oct 2009 04:59

^ A pic is worth a thousand words!

Spin garu just ended all the Chinook v/s Mi-26 debate once and for all.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 27 Oct 2009 05:14

Jagan wrote:Okay, this one is for the oldies (and ofcourse noobies as well).

the old BR MiG-29 specs page says the following:

My question (for Rakesh, if he is around)

*Upon further examination it was revealed that between 1990 and 1998, that HAL indeed had produced 350 RD-33 turbofans at its Koraput plant.
*On 15 July 1998, HAL delivered the first fully rebuilt and upgraded MiG-29 to the Indian Air Force.
*The upgrade has enabled the aircraft to fire the R-77RVV-AE (AA-12 Adder) air-to-air missile, also known as the Amraamski. A test of the Amraamski from an Indian Air Force MiG-29 was conducted in October 1998.
Are there any references for the above three statements?

ok N019 TOPAZ radar doesn't has capability to fire R77,if this was true then R77 must have been shown on mig29 by now but for last 10 year this was never shown

you must have seen the video of mig29 in which its shown that mig29 being loaded with R27 missile and being readied for sortie and this video is taken after 2002, so this video clears that MIG29 have no R77

moreover earlier mig29 fitted with flown around world never been shown with R77 missile

chinese su27 have N001 radar which is capable of firing only R27 missile ,
only N001VE radar on SU30MKK can fire R77

PERO radar upgrade for N001 and N019 is done only with 35% of the cost of new radar and this allows significant increase in capability

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 27 Oct 2009 06:11

Baldev,

I get your point about Indian MiG-29s and R-77s and No pics being available. But what was the source for that original October 98 claim?

moreover earlier mig29 fitted with flown around world never been shown with R77 missile

Yefim Gordon does say that the MiG-29S (Fulcrum C) has a radar + FCS based on an improved NO19 can fire the R-77 and they did during their first trials (in the late 80s/1990 era)

George J · Post by **George J** » 27 Oct 2009 06:19

Since we are regressing:

N019 Sapfir-29 (Baseline)
N019E Rubin (export version of Sapfir)
N019M Topaz (better ECCM and BITE)
N019ME Topaz (export version)
N010 Zhuk or Sapfir-29M not to be confused with N001 Meich or Sapfir-27 for the Su-27

Jagan,
There is a 2003 ACIG reference that says all Mig-29 upg to fire RVV-AE.
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_236.shtml

It is now confirmed that all MiG-29s of the IAF are R-77 capable.

You can hit the library and find the original 2001 AWST reference, I can do it if you need it but will take a few days.

And most importantly there was a photo....we need to refind that photo which shows the Mig-29 + RVV-AE.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 27 Oct 2009 06:29

George J wrote:

Jagan,
There is a 2003 ACIG reference that says all Mig-29 upg to fire RVV-AE.
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_236.shtml
It is now confirmed that all MiG-29s of the IAF are R-77 capable.
You can hit the library and find the original 2001 AWST reference, I can do it if you need it but will take a few days.

And most importantly there was a photo....we need to refind that photo which shows the Mig-29 + RVV-AE.

An IAF MiG-29 with RVV-AE? I would like to see that.

George , dont get me wrong. But ACIG / BR / Wikipedia do end up self referencing each other. Now that I see Harry has mentioned it in his piece - did he base it on a talk with the pilot? what other sources are there? The specific claim of Oct 98 is interesting - where did that come from?

And 350 RD-33 manufactured at Koraput? Cant find any source for that other than the BR page.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 27 Oct 2009 06:42

George J wrote:Since we are regressing:

N019 Sapfir-29 (Baseline)
N019E Rubin (export version of Sapfir)
N019M Topaz (better ECCM and BITE)
N019ME Topaz (export version)
N010 Zhuk or Sapfir-29M not to be confused with N001 Meich or Sapfir-27 for the Su-27
Jagan,
There is a 2003 ACIG reference that says all Mig-29 upg to fire RVV-AE.
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_236.shtml
It is now confirmed that all MiG-29s of the IAF are R-77 capable.
You can hit the library and find the original 2001 AWST reference, I can do it if you need it but will take a few days.

And most importantly there was a photo....we need to refind that photo which shows the Mig-29 + RVV-AE.

jagan wrote:An IAF MiG-29 with RVV-AE? I would like to see that

here is video of indian mig29 being loaded with R27 and this video is surely produced well after operation safed sagar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu5gzo_w ... re=related

this mean if R77 was mounted on mig29 in 1997 then there should be R77 being loaded on mig29 along with R27 but no such thing

so after watching above one should have no doubt that indian mig29 can't fire R77

moreover we are talking only about R77 on mig29 but main thing it mig29 can fire R77 then its sure it can also fire other stand off weapons like KH31/29 etc but no such thing again

not to forget initial batch of SU30K could fire only R27 missile only so this means N019 TOPAZ being smaller brother of N001 installed on SU30K can fire only R27

N019 is the USSR standard model.

N019EA is the version supplied to Warsaw Pact countries. Lacks "SP" mode.

N019EB is an export variant for general export. More downgraded. Less capable TS100.02.06 digital processor. Also lacks "SP" mode.

N019M is an updated version, developed as a response to the compromise of the N-019 radar by a US spy. Tested from 1986, it entered limited production in 1991. Slightly lighter than the N-019 at 350kg. N019 has increased ECM resistance, new software, and a more advanced built-in monitoring system. A new Ts101M computer relieves the processor overload problems of the N019, more than doubling capacity to 400,000 operations per second whilst weighing less, just 19kg, and with doubled MTBF of 1000h compared to the 500h of the Ts100. N019M allows two targets to be engaged by active radar homing missiles simultaneously. Range increased slightly to 80km. Originally intended to be fitted to the existing MiG-29 fleet as an upgrade, about 22 aircraft with N019M are thought to have entered service with the VVS.

N019ME Topaz Export version of Topaz, slightly downgraded. All Indian MiG-29s have been upgraded to this standard.

N019MP is a further modified radar proposed by Phazotron for the MiG-29SMT program. It used a Baguet series processor. The maximum range remained the about the same, but the radar could detect 20 targets simultaneously, track four, and engage two. The radar had also basic air-to-ground functions, like ground mapping mode, acquisition and engagement of sea targets with radar homing missiles, and ground targets with unguided weaponry under any weather conditions, day and night. The NO19MP could generate maps of 15x15, 24x24, 50x50 or 77x77km with a resolution of 15m. Radar imagery could be transmitted via datalink to GCI centres or A-50 AWACS aircraft. Targets visible on the radar map could be designated by the pilot(using a joystick) or ground controller, and used to cue TV-guided missile seekers, whose higher resolution imagery can then be displayed or transmitted to the GCI or A-50 controller as well. Performance against slow flying helicopters was improved as well as resistance to jamming. Uses Doppler beam sharpening techniques. Now superceded by N019M1.

N019M1 This latest radar upgrade proposal from Phazotron retains the antenna and transmitter block assemblies but replaces pretty much all the rest of the radar. It introduces new fully programmable digital processing, giving 30-50% greater range in air-to-air search and track. Improved track-while-scan mode, with the ability to continue volume search for new targets while tracking 10. 4 targets can engaged at once with R-77 missiles. 4 different close combat modes are available. Has raid assessment mode, and target class recognition. Air to surface modes include Real beam, DBS, SAR (5x5m), and moving target detection. Can handoff target data to the Kh-31A/Kh-35A anti-shipping missiles. Allows target handoff to TV guided weapons. Collision alarm system. It is being touted as a low cost upgrade for existing MiG-29 operators.

Phazotron-Ukraine are offering a UM522 low noise reciever to replace the NO19-09 UHF receiver. This low cost drop-in replacement part increases range 10-20%.

http://aerospace.boopidoo.com/philez/Su ... ionics.htm

both N019MP and N019M1 can fire R77

George J · Post by **George J** » 27 Oct 2009 07:01

I think Harry got that independently.

So either I am turning senile but I could have sworn there was a Mig-29 on display with an RVV-AE, it was a minor discussion many years ago. I would like to say Mumbai airshow but there is no such pic there.

Also lets get the time lines on the RVV-AE correct.

On Page 168 Fomin wrote:The hard work of the RVV-AE developers, first of al Vempel, Istok, Agat and NIIAS bore fruit, asn as early as 1984 flight testing of the first prototype of the missile commenced. Following the successful completion of the official test program in 1994, the baseline RVV-AE version entered the Russian Air force inventory.

So I guess there was no such thing as an RVV-AE before 1994.

In June 1993 an Su-27UB "represented" the Su-30MK. The RVV-AE was expected to join the inventory.
In 1996 India signed the MKI contract which does stipulated the RVV-AE.
In 1997 July we had 8 the Su-30K, followed by 10 more in 1999. It would be news to me if they did not come with RVV-AE capability.

So the IAF Mig-29 getting RVV-AE in 1998 does not fit the bill?

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 27 Oct 2009 07:09

George, borrowing what a great sage said..

at the very least a pic of an Indian MiG-29 and an RVV-AE sharing the same bed (i.e display space) would suffice.

George J · Post by **George J** » 27 Oct 2009 07:14

Jagan wrote:.......at the very least a pic of an Indian MiG-29 and an RVV-AE sharing the same bed (i.e display space) would suffice.

Ok then i am going senile......if NO ONE ELSE remember the Mig-29 + RVV-AE pic then what is the point. But I could have sworn....oh well.

If I find it...I am exiling you to the Hot Air forum. Now let me go take my meds.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 27 Oct 2009 07:31

Marut wrote:^ A pic is worth a thousand words!

Spin garu just ended all the Chinook v/s Mi-26 debate once and for all.

how does it end any debate ? does that picture tell you whether or not the Mi-26 is easier to maintain, with how many man-hours of maintenance per flight hour ? does it tell you how good its sortie generation rates are ? does it tell you how many crew are required ? does it tell you how modern its avionics are or whether or not there are any anti-missile protection measures ? does that picture tell you that it is more maneuverable in tight spaces at high altitudes when it may be faced with bad guys with Anzas or Stingers and is more survivable ?

the payload of the Mi-26 was never in question. we all know that it can carry a lot, but you don't need such a huge helicopter for all missions, some where there is no need for such a large payload, and some where it is extremely expensive to fly considering the pay-off in terms of payload carried. just because a modified 747 can carry the shuttle doesn't mean that the IAF should get it and haul its aircraft around on its back either.

the fact is, the Mi-26 is not bad, but its upto the users, the IAF, and what they want from their Heavy Lift helicopter- is the Mi-26 an overkill for that on most missions or not ? even if the IAF was to go in for the Mi-26, it requires a lot of work before it can be inducted to modernise it. Even the French and Germans have evaluated it for their Heavy Lift requirement. However, the French do want an upgraded Mi-26T, if it is selected.

France, Germany Lean Towards Russian Mi-26T for Heavy Transport Requirement

PARIS --- France and Germany are leaning towards an off-the-shelf acquisition to meet their requirement for a heavy transport helicopter, and according to present plans could award a production contract by 2012 for initial deliveries in 2017.

The two countries on June 20 signed an agreement in which they said they would “work in common to harmonise their requirements for operational and tactical airlift and air manoeuvrability, in order to fill the gap beyond the capabilities provided by the NH90” and the future Airbus A400M fixed-wing aircraft. The project is known as Helicoptère de Transport Lourd (HTL) in France and Future Transport Helicopter (FTH) in Germany.

“It is not obvious that we will have to develop a new helicopter: we hope to adapt what is available on the market,” François Mestre, the official in charge of the program at the French defense procurement agency, DGA, told defense-aerospace.com. The looming defense spending crunch in France also argues for off-the-shelf solutions rather than expensive development programs.

Three helicopters are being evaluated in the initial phase: the Boeing CH-47F Chinook, the Sikorsky CH-53K project and the Mil Mi-26T. The latter will be evaluated by the French Army in November, Mestre said, under an agreement signed in December with Rosoboronexport, the Russian arms export agency.

“We anticipate finalizing a common requirement by 2009 followed by a two-year risk reduction phase, with an additional year to complete contract specifications,” he said. A procurement contract could be signed in 2012 with initial deliveries to follow in 2017. “This is a very relaxed schedule because we want to take the time to build a durable program,” Mestre said.

It also would leave ample time to modify the basic Mi-26T design to European requirements. It has a five-man crew, while France wants three at most, and both its avionics and engines are outdated. It also does not have a Western certification. Development costs for a new version of a new Mi-26T with new engine and avionics would be considerable, but could be shared with Russia which will have to upgrade the Mi-26T in any case.

The CH-47F was declared combat-ready by the US Army in August, so it is probably too late to incorporate any modifications needed by France and Germany. The CH-53K currently has no European partner since Eurocopter decided last year that it would not participate, while the Mi-26T offers considerable growth potential and, perhaps most interestingly, a cost-effective solution providing France and Germany with a very capable helicopter whose technology they would acquire.

Germany has taken the lead in the FTH project, but both it and France hope to involve the European Defence Agency (EDA) so as to attract additional participants, such as Poland, Finland, Sweden and smaller EDA members. However, European requirements are very diverse, and it is not clear a single design would be suitable for all, sources say.

The EDA issued a statement on June 21 saying it “warmly welcomes the announcement of a Franco-German joint effort for a common project on a Future Transport Helicopter capability in the 2020 timeframe….The European Defence Agency has always encouraged Member States to converge their thinking about future needs and to collaborate closely on such ventures at an early stage, with widest possible participation,” said outgoing EDA Chief Executive Nick Witney.

However, European industry sources say there is little chance that the program will find many interested partners as the larger European countries have already committed to other projects to meet their requirements. An executive of Italy’s AgustaWestland noted that the Italian Army has decided to buy the CH-47F Chinook, while Britain has just invested £250 million to buy six additional EH-101s and to upgrade six older CH-47s.

“The diversification in tactical mobility missions, as well as lessons learned from recent operations, confirmed the need to provide armed forces with efficient and highly capable transport helicopters for personnel, light armoured vehicles and cargo. Based on its flexibility, this capability will also address personnel evacuation or emergency logistics transport, within a wide range of operational, geographical and meteorological conditions,” according to a joint French-German statement issued June 20.

In terms of operational requirements, France wants the new helicopter to be able to transport two VBL light armored vehicles and, possibly, a VAB 13-tonne vehicle as slung cargo. It wants to be able to fly two tactical missions of up to 600 km each without refueling, Mestre said, which implies a maximum range of 1,000-1,500 km. In-flight refueling is a possibility, but is not essential.

Himanshu · Post by **Himanshu** » 27 Oct 2009 08:29

George.. I had seen that pic.. it had the HAL hangar doors as the backdrop.. 29 was having 77 on the rails..

kvraghav · Post by **kvraghav** » 27 Oct 2009 08:46

I think this an R-77.Some one please ID.
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-p ... 449734.jpg

It is defenitely not an R-27 as the forward fins are missing.If only the photo was from other end.

negi · Post by **negi** » 27 Oct 2009 08:52

Yes it is R-77 training round.

Yikes it is in fact R-27 training round without the trademark cruciform wings .I think I am pretty sure about this.

Here
R-27 training round

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 27 Oct 2009 08:55

I suppose it means the baaz can fire R-77?

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 27 Oct 2009 10:08

IIRC... There was a MiG 29 on display with the R77 in the static display area of Aero India 2005.. I had a pic but can't seem to find the right DVD i backed it up into......

kvraghav wrote:I think this an R-77.Some one please ID.
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-p ... 449734.jpg

It is defenitely not an R-27 as the forward fins are missing.If only the photo was from other end.

Another angle on the same bird.. seems there 2 missiles.... one is a confirmed R 27 in the mid wing pylon..
http://www.airliners.net/photo/India--- ... 95b65d1d31

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Oct 2009 10:20

Just remember faintly , wasnt it through PAF that the world at large came to know that Mig-29 got R-77 capability sometime in mid/late 90's.

The IAF perhaps wanted to keep the Baaz/R-77 capability a secret for as long as it can , because of the tactical operational advantage it would get viz a viz PAF.

It wouldn't take a rocket science genius to integrate the R-77 with existing Mig-29 N019M radar, the only question was the availability of the missile to IAF

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 27 Oct 2009 10:54

George J wrote:
Jagan wrote:.......at the very least a pic of an Indian MiG-29 and an RVV-AE sharing the same bed (i.e display space) would suffice.
Ok then i am going senile......if NO ONE ELSE remember the Mig-29 + RVV-AE pic then what is the point. But I could have sworn....oh well.

If I find it...I am exiling you to the Hot Air forum. Now let me go take my meds.

No, I do remember - this was discussed before, iirc the picture was put up. Wish JC or harry were around, they'd have surely provided the dirt. But for some strange reason i can't find it - perhaps was seeing things. Anyway Sipri points out only R-27 for baaz. does mention 1075 R77s ordered for MKIs and Bisons with a possibility for Mig-29s and 27s!

CM.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 27 Oct 2009 16:50

Ok for now I will stick to "While there is a rumoured capability(link to ACIG) to carry the RVV-AEE (R-77), There has not been a public confirmation of the same " . (Till we find a picture or that article)

I can discard that 350 RD33 story without any second thoughts I would guess.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 27 Oct 2009 18:54

kvraghav wrote:I think this an R-77.Some one please ID.
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-p ... 449734.jpg

It is defenitely not an R-27 as the forward fins are missing.If only the photo was from other end.

and its definitely not R77 either ,r77 has fins but there is no sign of fins in the picture

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 27 Oct 2009 19:03

negi wrote:Yes it is R-77 training round.

Yikes it is in fact R-27 training round without the trademark cruciform wings .I think I am pretty sure about this.

Here
R-27 training round

its not r77 training round

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 27 Oct 2009 19:12

here are some pics of mig29 on aero india 2003 which clearly shows mig29 is only R27 capable
http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/os_bison2_001.jpg
http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/os_flc_001.jpg
http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/os_flc2_001.jpg
you can clearly see mig21 armed with R77 BUT NOT MIG29

so this clearly shows that mig29 are not armed with R77,if mig29 was armed with R77 it would have been shown in aero india 1998 but no such thing

so this should end speculation that mig29 armed with R77

only mig29m and mig29smt were armed with R77

moreover BR says mig29 were upgraded in 1997 this means N019 radars were upgraded to TOPAZ standard

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 27 Oct 2009 19:48

Jagan,

Correct statement is that 350 engines were re-built by HAL Koraput i.e. overhauled.

Also till date I am yet to see MiG-29 + R-77 picture in IAF. The first time we saw R-77 in IAF was when the big Su came along.

Jagan wrote:Ok for now I will stick to "While there is a rumoured capability(link to ACIG) to carry the RVV-AEE (R-77), There has not been a public confirmation of the same " . (Till we find a picture or that article)

I can discard that 350 RD33 story without any second thoughts I would guess.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Oct 2009 20:02

are capabilities generally defined by pics?

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 27 Oct 2009 20:15

HAL produced mig27 with TOT so its obvious that HAL produces spares for MIG27

and everyone knows that MIG23 variants MF/BN have been retired

and its interesting to talk about similarity of MIG27 and MIG23 as far as spares,airframe,engine are concerned

so this means spares produced for mig27 can easily be used on mig23 bn/mf,this means there should not be problem as far as spares are concerned, and its interesting that despite this mig23 were retired instead of upgrading them

its also interesting that MIG23 MF had better armament than F16A thats why mig23 was better in BVR and inferior in agility when comparing it to F16A

and this also means mig23MF was as good as M2000 in BVR

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 27 Oct 2009 20:17

SaiK wrote:are capabilities generally defined by pics?

may be,by the way why would IAF hide this when you know that they have displayed all of their aircraft with latest armament

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Oct 2009 20:46

depends ..

sometimes you want to show in pics to tell..

sometimes you want to hide things but keep it in guess [for example: icbm/strat].

it could also depend on events, timings, venue, geo-politics, etc.
..

another example we normally switch off ramba's radar always during joint exercises or use a substitute.

we don't show everything to public!, correct?

George J · Post by **George J** » 27 Oct 2009 21:09

I have to agree with Baldev, Fred Willemsen's KB715 seems to be carrying R-27 training round with the fins removed and that angle makes it look like an R-77. Look at Ken Sekhon's pic posted by Bala. The explanation could be that Fred took his pic just before departure while Ken took his pic when it was on static display.

Since we are quoting SIPRI:

I could be senile but I do recall that according to them back in 1998 we were supposed to have 750 RVV-AE in a deal that was signed in 1996. That fits the Mig-29 rebuild timeline very well.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 27 Oct 2009 21:43

Baldev wrote:HAL produced mig27 with TOT so its obvious that HAL produces spares for MIG27

licence building of an aircraft doesn't mean that the licence builder builds spares as well. read up on the No. 11 Base Repair Depot (BRD) article on the BR website, the article being reproduced from Vayu. it was because of the poor spares availability for the MiG-23 that the No.11 BRD went in for large scale indigenisation of the spares for the MiG-23. it is to their credit that they indigenised nearly 90% of the rotables of the MiG-23.

so this means spares produced for mig27 can easily be used on mig23 bn/mf,this means there should not be problem as far as spares are concerned, and its interesting that despite this mig23 were retired instead of upgrading them.

the MiG-23s were given a 5 year life extension by No. 11 BRD. the life was extended from 25 years/ 2500 hours to 3000 hours, another 5 years of service. after that was nearly over, the choice was made to retire these instead of putting them through a major upgrade. the decision was made by the IAF most likely based on the poor safety record of the MiG-23 as well as its not-so-hot performance.

for the MiG-29, which originally had a design service life of only 2000 hours, or 20 years, No. 11 BRD increased it by 1000 hours or 10 years after an indigenously designed Service Life Extension. After this was nearly over, the IAF had to go in for a major upgrade with the OEM involved. What is most interesting is that most people are not aware of the fact that No. 11 BRD had actually developed composite panels and wing skin for the wing and fins to reduce weight.

its also interesting that MIG23 MF had better armament than F16A thats why mig23 was better in BVR and inferior in agility when comparing it to F16A

but its easier to make an aerodynamically superior platform into a BVR weapon carrying platform through avionics upgrades, than to turn an inferior dogfighter into a better one, which is nearly impossible without complete re-design.

and the superb agility of the lightweight F-16A meant that even with added on weight as newer blocks were developed, the F-16 remains an agile aircraft with more powerful engines being used. the swing-wing technology put too many limitations on an aircraft, as witnessed by the MiG-23's peer, the Tornado which was also developed like the MiG-23, with a long-range BVR weapon platform (Tornado ADV) and the strike version (Tornado IDS). Read up online about how the high-wing loading of these aircraft meant that while being good strikers, they were not quite so nimble when turning and maneuvering. the F-16 would outclass both in agility and its no slouch in BVR anymore.

and this also means mig23MF was as good as M2000 in BVR

that would depend on how good the radar was in differentiating the target against ground clutter in look-down mode. Its not as simple as a one-to-one relation of both being armed with semi-active missiles and hence being as good as one another. while the RDM isn't very modern by today's standards, it was a good set in the 1980s and 1990s, and the later 10 Mirages that the IAF ordered had a better RDM 7 radar.

Funnily enough, looking at the argument about IAF Baaz being able to fire the R-77, there was a long argument on BRF a long time ago about the IAF Mirages having MICA missiles- I don’t recall the poster's name, but was some NRI kid that claimed his brother was in the USAF or something and had seen IAF Mirages with MICA missiles, something which we know is not true. that was during the first Cope India if I recall correctly.

George J · Post by **George J** » 27 Oct 2009 21:53

Jagan wrote:Ok for now I will stick to "While there is a rumoured capability(link to ACIG) to carry the RVV-AEE (R-77), There has not been a public confirmation of the same " . (Till we find a picture or that article)

I can discard that 350 RD33 story without any second thoughts I would guess.

No since the source of the confusion is June 2001 AWST we need to track it down. If it does have a Pushpinder Singh Chopra article in it then we simply refer back to it (in PDF) and say that we were in error about what we said and this is what the actual article says. I am not sure if we can track a 2001 article from our local library I can try.

If Pushpinder is right...then too we have the source.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 Oct 2009 23:06

Funnily enough, looking at the argument about IAF Baaz being able to fire the R-77, there was a long argument on BRF a long time ago about the IAF Mirages having MICA missiles- I don’t recall the poster's name, but was some NRI kid that claimed his brother was in the USAF or something and had seen IAF Mirages with MICA missiles, something which we know is not true. that was during the first Cope India if I recall correctly.

I remember that argument quite well. don't remember the name of the postor though.

funnily enough, just a couple of days back I came across another (old) reference of IAF mirages having the mica.