But, L&T should try the Russo-Italian Amur rather than the Russian Lada. It could be part of the design team for making changes like increasing tonnage and improvement of hull of hull design over Amurs. What could be a reason?At least four exercises, including the Okinawa war game, have been called off at the last minute this year despite being scheduled well in advance. In all cases, while the armed forces had committed troops and equipment, lack of permission from the Ministry led to cancellations.
In one case, the US even expressed dismay as it suffered a loss of several million dollars due to the last-minute cancellation of an exercise between the US Marines and Indian Navy. The exercise, which was scheduled to take place in India weeks before the Lok Sabha elections, was called off after troops and specialised equipment had been committed by the US. Another exercise was called off after the elections took place, sending conflicting signals.
As a fi rst step in this endeavor, this article examines a key ingredient in the
expected emergence of a “strategic triangle”—the prospects of Indian sea power.
While no one has rigorously defi ned this international-relations metaphor, scholars
typically use it to convey a strategic interplay of interests among three nationstates.
In this initial foray, we employ the term fairly loosely, using it to describe
a pattern of cooperation and competition among the United States, China, and
India. It is our contention that Indian Ocean stability will hinge largely on how
India manages its maritime rise. On the one hand, if a robust Indian maritime
presence were to fail to materialize, New Delhi would essentially be forced to surrender
its interests in regional waters, leaving a strategic vacuum to the United
States and China. On the other hand, if powerful Indian naval forces were one day
to be used for exclusionary purposes, the region would almost certainly become
an arena for naval competition. Either undesirable outcome would be shaped in
part by how India views its own maritime prerogatives and by how Washington
and Beijing weigh the probabilities of India’s nautical success or failure in the
Indian Ocean.
If all three parties foresee a muscular Indian naval policy, then, a more martial
environment in the Indian Ocean will likely take shape. But if the three powers
view India and each other with equanimity, the prospects for cooperation will
brighten considerably. Capturing the perspectives of the three powers on India’s
maritime ambitions is thus a critical analytical starting point.
Navy’s Fighters pass Carrier Test in Russia
Manu Pubby
Posted online : Thursday , Oct 01, 2009 at 0347 hrs
New Delhi : The Navy is awaiting its new fleet of fighter jets — the first batch of MiG-29 K combat aircraft — set to arrive in Goa in November this year.
The Fighters, which will be the most modern combat aircraft in India’s inventory( India’s or the Navy’s), completed several rounds of landings and take- offs from Russia’s sole aircraft- carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, this week. The crucial tests, Indian Navy officers say, have now cleared the path for their delivery to India.
The Navy will get four of the maritime MiG 29s — two single seater fighters and two double seater trainers — but the transfer will take several weeks as the aircraft will be knocked down and delivered by ship.
“The aircraft successfully completed the trials that lasted for over two days and made several landings on the aircraft carrier. The tests were witnessed by our team that was onboard the Russian carrier,” a senior Navy officer said.
The aircraft are now undergoing weapons trials and would shortly be dispatched to India. Once they arrive in “container format”, the aircraft will be reassembled by Russian technicians and would be inducted at the naval airbase in Goa. The aim is to induct the first four aircraft before the Navy Day, celebrated on December 4.
While the aircraft are now set to arrive shortly, they will be operated only from shore based facilities for the next three years as the Gorshkov aircraft carrier is still undergoing repair at the Sevmash shipyard. The revised scheduled for delivery of the aircraft is 2012 and the final price renegotiations are expected to be concluded shortly.
Navy officers say that the successful trials of the fighters onboard the Russian carrier will also pave the way for a follow on order for 29 more aircraft. “One of the key factors (holding up the follow on order) was the flight deck trials of the fighter,” the officer said.
While 16 MiG-29 K/KUB were ordered as part of a $ 1.5 billion deal signed in 2004, the Navy wants to procure 29 additional fighters over the next few years to raise additional fighter squadrons.
The contract is expected to be worth close to $ 2 billion. The Navy is planning to raise a total of three squadrons of MiG-29 K ship-borne fighters. A follow on order to take the total number of fighters to close to 50 is expected in the future.
The last MiG-29K modification has as twice longer airframe life and as 2.5 times lesser fly hour cost. The engine RD-33MK 'Sea Wasp' - is an exellent, unsmoke and on pair with its con-temporal Western counterparts. Also Vikra can take more planes with MiGs than with Su-30s.bhavik wrote:I'm a newbie with question
Mig29 has its own shortcomings ...maintenance, struct probs, engine, payload, range compared to Su30.
"Why not SU30 for Carriers as in Russia/China?"
Not just the brakes, a couple of wheel restraints are clearly visible which rapidly retract into the flight deck just before the take off roll.NRao
Cool stuff.
@ 2:55, when it starts the roll, is it just the brakes that hold it back?
I guess the major reason to move to cats is that on a larger ship one can have 3/4 cats?
back when the decision was taken it was the su-33 that was in a more advanced stage of development than the mig-29, as su-33 was already in service on the kuz.bhavik wrote:I'm a newbie with question
Mig29 has its own shortcomings ...maintenance, struct probs, engine, payload, range compared to Su30.
"Why not SU30 for Carriers as in Russia/China?"
I hear that even on the kuz, sukhoi payload is severely restricted.If the Su33 was eventually restricted to the payload
mig-29 upg ?The positive effect is that IAF benefits from the upgrades paid by IN.
And hopefully Mig 35 too .Rahul M wrote:y
mig-29 upg ?
Logistically it would make a sense to pursue Mig-35 as MMRCA candidate , as we have a good synergy with IAF upgraded Mig-29 , Naval 29K and Medium Mig-35Sanku wrote:And hopefully Mig 35 too .Rahul M wrote:y
mig-29 upg ?
Yup makes sense , I guess it would be the same if they updated the Tu-142M to SD standardstsarkar wrote:Austin – replying here - I checked on the positioning of the ELINT suite, the response I got (FWIW) was that installing the sensors across the fuselage would require extensive rewiring and modification throughout the aircraft. That would be expensive & time consuming since the aircraft is basically a 50’s vintage passenger plane upgrade. The same issues resulted in cost and time overrun of the Nimrod upgrade. Apparently most of the new electronics – EO ball & radar were in the forward part, hence the ELINT suite was positioned there.
It's even more sense-full not to go for 'final' MiG-35 airframe with increased composite part, but follow with MiG-29M\2M airframe most close to current MiG-29K, without TVC as well. It's gonna be cheaper for sure and even more common with MiG-29Ks and the old MiG-29 fleet. If a number is what IAF realy need now, it looks as most reliable solution. The saved money could be allocated for other programs like LCA, MCA, FGFA.Austin wrote: Logistically it would make a sense to pursue Mig-35 as MMRCA candidate , as we have a good synergy with IAF upgraded Mig-29 , Naval 29K and Medium Mig-35
The answer is: time and cost. The final version of MiG-35K has a different airframe structure, so they would need to rework the folded wings and repeat a lot of the tests. More realistic - is an AESA radar adoption on MiG-29K next batch. Both are from the same family, have common source codes and algorithms thus Zhuk-ME could be transformed to Zhuk-AE during upgrade.Gagan wrote:Why can't IN order a Mig-35K for carrier ops in the follow up order for the IAC? Even install Mig-35 features on the current remaining Mig-29 Ks
What weapon is it testing folks?Srivastav wrote:INS Shivalik....weapon testing pics
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/10/fi ... ealth.html
from shiva aroor's blog
Looks like 2238.Well the radar looks bigger in terms of width compared to EL/M 2238 on Brahmaputra so its most likely the large variant (or could be different radar all together).Srivastav wrote:looks like the RBU-6000 ASW rockets to me....thanks for pointing it out john saar, i was looking at the secondary mast and wondering what it was.
P.S - john saar it does look like el/m -2238, what size array do you think it is. I was looking at 2238's brochure and trying to figure out if its the medium or large size one.
http://www.misile-iai.com/sip_storage/files/3/36843.pdf
pozitive ME or fregat MAE with 150km rangeJohn wrote:Well the radar looks bigger in terms of width compared to EL/M 2238 on Brahmaputra so its most likely the large variant (or could be different radar all together).Srivastav wrote:looks like the RBU-6000 ASW rockets to me....thanks for pointing it out john saar, i was looking at the secondary mast and wondering what it was.
P.S - john saar it does look like el/m -2238, what size array do you think it is. I was looking at 2238's brochure and trying to figure out if its the medium or large size one.
http://www.misile-iai.com/sip_storage/files/3/36843.pdf
Not more difficult, than was on the current MiG-35 pre-serial craft, since it was also built around MiG-29M airframe. If press Pogosyan harder, have chance for an L-band radar tooGagan wrote:and fused sensors all over the body.
How difficult will it be to start building the next Mig-29K with the sensors all over just as in the '35?
It is not just about sensors "all over", but the challenge is in sending the right info to the pilot in the right format and display it in the right way.with the sensors all over
