Indian Naval Discussion

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 01 Oct 2009 23:50

SNaik wrote:Positiv M1.2 for comparison
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g191/ ... tivM12.jpg
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g191/ ... ivME12.jpg

cool pix thanks
so i was right about my guess

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 02 Oct 2009 00:17

John wrote:
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
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).

Revathi?

John · Post by **John** » 02 Oct 2009 02:28

Baldev wrote:
SNaik wrote:Positiv M1.2 for comparison
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g191/ ... tivM12.jpg
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g191/ ... ivME12.jpg
cool pix thanks
so i was right about my guess

Nope does not quite look like it, we will know for sure when we get some frontal shots also IIRC Positiv radars are usally enclosed in a dome. As for CIWS its ak-630 and Barak.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Oct 2009 02:40

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?"

several reasons can be put forth:

- a meaningful complement of fighters on board the INS Vikramaditya would be around 16 fighters alongwith ASW helicopters, Ka-28/32 AEW helicopters and a couple of SAR helis. the Su-33 is much larger than the MiG-29K and only 6-8 of them could fit on the deck space of the INS Vik. also, the hangar space within the INS Vik will not allow for more Su-33s to be carried as compared to MiG-29Ks.

- of the MiG-29A's issues structural is not one of them because the corrosion issue is acute mainly in Russia where the aircraft that were operated near the Black Sea without corrosion prevention coatings, something the marinised MiG-29K has.

- all of the other drawbacks of the MiG-29A (poor man-machine interface, lack of multi-role capability, poor range, engines that emit smoke) have been tackled on the MiG-29K. I'd suggest that you read up on the MiG-29K and how different it is from the MiG-29A. Apart from the very different front section OML, avionics, Zhuk ME radar, digital FBW, true multirole capabilities, extra fuel for extra range, IFR, buddy refuelling capability, a Thales TopSight HMDS, and a very wide variety of weapons from anti-ship, anti-radar, to air-to-air to air-to-ground. regarding the engines, the RD-33 Sea Wasp engines have a newer combustor to reduce smoke, and much higher uptimes and lower downtimes. range compared to the Su-33 will obviously be much lower, but compared to other naval fighters, like the F-18 or Rafale, I don't think it'll be less because of the additional internal fuel, plus IFR capability.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Oct 2009 02:59

Igorr wrote: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.

different airframe in what respects ? the model that was shown sometime back that showed a slightly different wing planform and some difference in the vertical stabilizer ? at least the MiG-35 thats been created from the MiG-29M2 MRCA demonstrator doesn't have any very visible differences from the MiG-29K.

BTW, do the Zhuk ME and Zhuk AE have similar back end so a simple change of the array could do the trick or is it a much bigger change ?

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 02 Oct 2009 03:23

Kartik wrote:different airframe in what respects ?

- 1) much more composites (up to 30% they said)
2) more internal fuel tanks
3) 11 hard-points instead of 9

BTW, do the Zhuk ME and Zhuk AE have similar back end so a simple change of the array could do the trick or is it a much bigger change ?

Their back end cannot be similar for one oblivious reason: between Zhuk-ME and Zhuk-AE are a number of years, so the hardware must be different, plus the beam deflection system is different, but the algorithms are same (with except of beam deflection) and the dimension is same, coz it was for same class of aircraft. They also claimed that Zhuk-AE is the development of Zhuk family radars. So I believe they know to upgrade Zhuk-ME to Zhuk-AE with minimal efforts.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Oct 2009 09:05

A secondary surveillance radar on ship should be of Long Range ( ~ 400 -500 Km ) and of L band type.

It would be better to go for standardisation for new gen of SSR , either European SMART-L or Russian Podberyozovik ET1/2 types, much like we have been using LW-08 for nearly 3 decades as standard SSR.

There is no point in using puppies like Positiv or 2238

John · Post by **John** » 02 Oct 2009 16:34

Large variant of EL/M 2238 has 350 km range.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Oct 2009 16:58

John wrote:Large variant of EL/M 2238 has 350 km range.

Well the Top Plate MFCR has a range of ~ 300 km , so that hardly makes much difference.

A true SSR/Volume Search Radar on Naval Ships should have a range of ~ 500 Km and operate in L/C band to provide early warning capability.

EL/M 2238 , Positiv are are like puppies good for Corvette type ships , definately IN capital ships need better LR Airsearch radar.

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 02 Oct 2009 17:28

VIDEO: MiG-29K Flight Tests Off Kuznetsov Carrier
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/10/vi ... s-off.html

Ankit Desai · Post by **Ankit Desai** » 02 Oct 2009 19:39

Cross Posting Pakistan fears India's rise in Afghanistan: US official

Meanwhile, the Indians, working with the Iranians, are doing the same thing across -- in Iran on the Arabian Sea, building a major port. You have China getting a naval anchor on the Arabian Sea in Pakistan, India and Iran doing exactly the same thing across the border,

Ankit

shynee · Post by **shynee** » 02 Oct 2009 20:15

No go-ahead from Ministry, so Navy opts out of US exercise

koti · Post by **koti** » 03 Oct 2009 01:06

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0yfxI6k ... re=related

Towards the middle of this video, the Mig takes off from a shorter runway position near the command centre. Is this possible with Gorshkov or we only have one launch position?

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 03 Oct 2009 03:06

Gorky has 2 launch positions which kuz has 3 launch positions. US carriers can do 4 launches thanks to 4 cats.

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

Austin wrote:
John wrote:Large variant of EL/M 2238 has 350 km range.
Well the Top Plate MFCR has a range of ~ 300 km , so that hardly makes much difference.

A true SSR/Volume Search Radar on Naval Ships should have a range of ~ 500 Km and operate in L/C band to provide early warning capability.

EL/M 2238 , Positiv are are like puppies good for Corvette type ships , definately IN capital ships need better LR Airsearch radar.

Yes 350 km is no where as much 500km+ for those radar but you have to keep in mind P-17s/Talwar are multi purpose FFGs and not to be in the same class as Fleet air defense vessel like De Zeven/Sachsen/Type 45 etc. Hence for cost and power requirement it makes sense to omit it (FREMM, Delta class etc don't even have a secondary radar).

shanksinha · Post by **shanksinha** » 03 Oct 2009 04:43

PHOTOS of IN pilots training in Russia on MiG 29 KUB:

http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt66 ... /Navy2.jpg
http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt66 ... /Navy1.jpg
http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt66 ... /Navy3.jpg
http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt66 ... /Navy4.jpg
http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt66 ... /Navy5.jpg

-Thanks

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 03 Oct 2009 05:38

vavinash,
The US carriers have twice as more displacement and trice more aircraft number than Vikra has, so their 4 take-off positions instead of Vikra's 2 might be even not enough. They also have to take into consideration the possibility of a tech problem or missile hit to one of catapulting line.

vijyeta · Post by **vijyeta** » 03 Oct 2009 06:04

Shashank N wrote:PHOTOS of IN pilots training in Russia on MiG 29 KUB:

http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt66 ... /Navy2.jpg

The IL78 has Aeroflot markings..... why does Aeroflot need a tanker?

Luxtor · Post by **Luxtor** » 03 Oct 2009 06:52

vijyeta wrote:
Shashank N wrote:PHOTOS of IN pilots training in Russia on MiG 29 KUB:

http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt66 ... /Navy2.jpg

The IL78 has Aeroflot markings..... why does Aeroflot need a tanker?

The IL78 also has CCCP markings, isn't that the Russian acronym for USSR?

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 03 Oct 2009 07:53

Austin wrote:
John wrote:Large variant of EL/M 2238 has 350 km range.
Well the Top Plate MFCR has a range of ~ 300 km , so that hardly makes much difference.

A true SSR/Volume Search Radar on Naval Ships should have a range of ~ 500 Km and operate in L/C band to provide early warning capability.

EL/M 2238 , Positiv are are like puppies good for Corvette type ships , definately IN capital ships need better LR Airsearch radar.

300km range freget M2EM radar is more than enough for shivalik when SAM has range of just 32 KM

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 03 Oct 2009 08:42

Shashank N wrote:PHOTOS of IN pilots training in Russia on MiG 29 KUB:

http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt66 ... /Navy2.jpg
http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt66 ... /Navy1.jpg
http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt66 ... /Navy3.jpg
http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt66 ... /Navy4.jpg
http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt66 ... /Navy5.jpg

-Thanks

seems like those helmets which Indian pilots have also used with rafale

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 03 Oct 2009 09:11

http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt66 ... /Navy3.jpg
http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt66 ... /Navy4.jpg
Darn how i wish i was one of them

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 03 Oct 2009 09:18

Well done Shashank, that is pure eye candy! Esp. the first two. These fulcrums look nothing like the original A. The bubble canopies, the large wings - simply superb! A dramatic mix of fulcrum, and eagle I'd say.Fabulous feast!

I dare say it is already a competition to the Rambha. What have BRfites christened this beauty? I like Baaz for the IAF fulcrums, Vajra is good too - what will the IN call it?

CM.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 03 Oct 2009 10:06

Igorr wrote:
Kartik wrote:different airframe in what respects ?
- 1) much more composites (up to 30% they said)
2) more internal fuel tanks
3) 11 hard-points instead of 9
BTW, do the Zhuk ME and Zhuk AE have similar back end so a simple change of the array could do the trick or is it a much bigger change ?
Their back end cannot be similar for one oblivious reason: between Zhuk-ME and Zhuk-AE are a number of years, so the hardware must be different, plus the beam deflection system is different, but the algorithms are same (with except of beam deflection) and the dimension is same, coz it was for same class of aircraft. They also claimed that Zhuk-AE is the development of Zhuk family radars. So I believe they know to upgrade Zhuk-ME to Zhuk-AE with minimal efforts.

Igorr,

I doubt it'll be anything too different from the "unified" family of K and Ms. If it is too radically different, MiG looses out on the massive advantage in the form of commonality. Composite structure in the K can always be increased in stages. They'll keep it v. similar to the K imho - it is a great design and has now seen extensive testing - of course they may try to make it lighter by increasing composites - perhaps even some load bearing, structural elements will end up being composite.
Ditto with the Zhuk- A.

Also, did anyone comment on the empty weight of the 35?

BTW, anyone realize what those white circles on the radome are?

CM.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 03 Oct 2009 12:19

Luxtor wrote:

The IL78 has Aeroflot markings..... why does Aeroflot need a tanker?

The IL78 also has CCCP markings, isn't that the Russian acronym for USSR?[/quote]

They seemingly took the re-fueler from the spare or returned from conservation. Due to growing need for additional Il-78 they do it now.

Cain Marko wrote: Composite structure in the K can always be increased in stages. They'll keep it v. similar to the K imho - it is a great design and has now seen extensive testing - of course they may try to make it lighter by increasing composites - perhaps even some load bearing, structural elements will end up being composite.

My personally think the increasing composites on a 4th gen fighter is an overkill. It's also not logically if an AF aircraft modification would have lighter and more expensive airframe with TVS, while the Navy has no. A more advanced airframe, a more powerful engine with TVS are much more needed for a carrier based plane. If India already went for a more conservative design with MiG-29K, I expect MiG-35 if wins will be rather close to MiG-29K in its basic airframe and engine characteristics. Besides for the top missions IAF has Rambha. What I more expect -is a total sensors upgrade on the next batch of MiG-29K, or\and more powerful engine. It would be more rational spending if a financial opportunity for so exists.

BTW, a new informationin about 'Vikramaditya's Combat Management System.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Oct 2009 12:26

What I more expect -is a total sensors upgrade on the next batch of MiG-29K, or\and more powerful engine.

which engine can that be ? is there anything in the pipeline in the rd-33 class ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Oct 2009 12:45

The combat management looks of COTS type , the COTS revolution is catching up in a big way.

What is the upgrade potential of RD-33MK ? I believe the one being proposed for Mig-35 is 90Kn type , but does it have any upgrade potential ?

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 03 Oct 2009 12:50

Rahul M wrote:
What I more expect -is a total sensors upgrade on the next batch of MiG-29K, or\and more powerful engine.
which engine can that be ? is there anything in the pipeline in the rd-33 class ?

The RD-33 potential with the current gas-generator is 10t of thrust (about 98 KN). I read before that they need for this only a minor changes in the fan and compressor. And with their prospective gas-generator RD-33 family can be uprated up to 12t thrust. If GE is going now to offer f414 with an 'increased thrust' at the expense of the engine life with the life limited to 2000 h, why Klimov could not do the same with its 4000 h RD-33MK? Of course it can do it by slightly increasing the temperature. I'm sure if they have already agreed to sell 9 t RD-93 to the Chinese, they have something more powerful in the pocket

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Oct 2009 13:06

GE will not offer any thing over engine life for sure.

But new generation engine like EJ-200 has a growth potential for ~ 30 % over existing design and thrust.

Yes I think higher thrust for RD-33 will be possible perhaps with the addition of new core ?

Igor what is this prospective gas-generator RD-33 family can be uprated up to 12t thrust ? Can you share some details ?

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 03 Oct 2009 14:38

Austin wrote:GE will not offer any thing over engine life for sure.

But new generation engine like EJ-200 has a growth potential for ~ 30 % over existing design and thrust.

Yes I think higher thrust for RD-33 will be possible perhaps with the addition of new core ?

Igor what is this prospective gas-generator RD-33 family can be uprated up to 12t thrust ? Can you share some details ?

First of all an engine is like a Pentium: you always can a bit raise the speed at expense of the life. They are gradually increasing the RD-33MK thrust during last years. If you look for their report from 2004, then RD-33MK had only 5.040 t thrust on-dry, 8.300 t on-wet and 8.700 t on the take-off regime. And now it has 5.400 t on-dry and 9.000 on-wet. They also have reduced the weight by 100 kg, so the whole engine WITH TVS now weighs only 1.140 t (1.050 t without it). The early designation of the 9 t Klimov's TVS engine was RD-133. Initially they offered it for MIG-29K, but India refused TVS. The 4000 h life resource was the ultimate Indian request for RD-33MK however, so they have had to be laborious with this...

As about 12 t Klimov's program they are projecting a 5th gen engine in RD-33 dimension and weigt starting from 2000 at least. Then Klimov was a part of MiG corp. The last was developing its own 5th gen fighter program competing with Sukhoi. Since Sukhoi project has won the Klimov's 5th gen engine project lost it's potential consumer and was frozen or is remained with low profile. Then they choose the gradually rising of RD-33 characteristics instead of going for a totally new engine.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 03 Oct 2009 14:45

Igorr wrote: The RD-33 potential with the current gas-generator is 10t of thrust (about 98 KN). I read before that they need for this only a minor changes in the fan and compressor. And with their prospective gas-generator RD-33 family can be uprated up to 12t thrust. If GE is going now to offer f414 with an 'increased thrust' at the expense of the engine life with the life limited to 2000 h, why Klimov could not do the same with its 4000 h RD-33MK? Of course it can do it by slightly increasing the temperature. I'm sure if they have already agreed to sell 9 t RD-93 to the Chinese, they have something more powerful in the pocket

It not just about thrust. The internal fuel capacity of LCA is limited. The specific fuel consumption of the present RD-33 while using the afterburner is greater than of the present EJ200. The important thing here is that the present RD-33 produces around 81 kN of thrust with afterburner while EJ200 produces 90 kN thrust with lesser SFC than RD-33. Afterburners are important to naval fighters especially for Short-take off configurations like that on NLCA. The question is whether Klimov can reduce the SFC of Rd-33. Actually, high bypass ratio turbofans are supposed to have lower SFC than lower bypass ratio engines.

The new RD-33MK is said to 7% higher afterburning thrust. Is this with the same amount of SFC as previous engines ??

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 03 Oct 2009 15:02

Luxtor wrote:
vijyeta wrote:The IL78 has Aeroflot markings..... why does Aeroflot need a tanker?
The IL78 also has CCCP markings, isn't that the Russian acronym for USSR?

Due to arms limitation treaties, part of Il-78s were ascribed to Aeroflot. Nevertheless, they were operated by AF. Same thing with heavylifts like An-22 and An-124 and others.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Oct 2009 15:13

John wrote:Yes 350 km is no where as much 500km+ for those radar but you have to keep in mind P-17s/Talwar are multi purpose FFGs and not to be in the same class as Fleet air defense vessel like De Zeven/Sachsen/Type 45 etc. Hence for cost and power requirement it makes sense to omit it (FREMM, Delta class etc don't even have a secondary radar).

Looking at next generation SSR for DDG of P-15B type , the SSR seems to be stuck with ~ 257 Kmts for RCS = 2m2 as per BEL for RAWL 02Mk3 ( http://www.bel-india.com/index.aspx?q=&sectionid=69 )

They probably would have been better off with RAWL 02Mk3 for P-17 and P-15B as SSR

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 03 Oct 2009 15:33

KrishG wrote:It not just about thrust. The internal fuel capacity of LCA is limited. The specific fuel consumption of the present RD-33 while using the afterburner is greater than of the present EJ200. The important thing here is that the present RD-33 produces around 81 kN of thrust with afterburner while EJ200 produces 90 kN thrust with lesser SFC than RD-33. Afterburners are important to naval fighters especially for Short-take off configurations like that on NLCA. The question is whether Klimov can reduce the SFC of Rd-33. Actually, high bypass ratio turbofans are supposed to have lower SFC than lower bypass ratio engines.

The new RD-33MK is said to 7% higher afterburning thrust. Is this with the same amount of SFC as previous engines ??

RD-33 was alway on the pair with the contemporal Western engine on SFC issue wth slightly better on dry. For example the Snecma M88-2 has a SFC of 1.7 kg/kgf/h with full afterburner and 0.8 at full military power. While RD-33 ser 3 has a SFC of 2.1 kg/kgf/hr in afterburner, 0.77 military. With FADEC on RD-33MK it has be better in some degree, but I don't know exact numbers. RD-33MK has 9 t with afterburner or 88.2 kN. The previous naval variant RD-33K had also the take-off mode with 9.4 t thrust. Now they are silent about this but for sure such option exists (at least as an option).

shanksinha · Post by **shanksinha** » 03 Oct 2009 16:09

Thanks CM. As Igorr has rightly pointed out the IL-78 tanker in one of the pics is indeed an example of a resurrected bird from civilian aircraft registery from Soviet times (hence the CCCP registeration), thus wearing civilian markings and number.

One pic I overlooked last time:
http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt66 ... lcrums.jpg

A good study in contrast of the older Rus pattern and new IN ghost grey colours. Also notice the rather large aux tanks on the blue bird.

-Thanks

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 03 Oct 2009 16:35

Shashank N wrote:Thanks CM. As Igorr has rightly pointed out the IL-78 tanker in one of the pics is indeed an example of a resurrected bird from civilian aircraft registery from Soviet times (hence the CCCP registeration), thus wearing civilian markings and number.

One pic I overlooked last time:
http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt66 ... lcrums.jpg

A good study in contrast of the older Rus pattern and new IN ghost grey colours. Also notice the rather large aux tanks on the blue bird.

-Thanks

the toned glass on the serial MiG-29KUB is very impressive too.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Oct 2009 18:27

Igorr wrote:Thanks

the toned glass on the serial MiG-29KUB is very impressive too.[/quote]

Are these modern cockpit glasses photochromatic in nature and darken when exposed to sunlight ?
I guess they are also bulletproof against small arms fire of atleast 12.7 mm bullet.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 03 Oct 2009 18:48

Austin wrote:

Are these modern cockpit glasses photochromatic in nature and darken when exposed to sunlight ?
I guess they are also bulletproof against small arms fire of atleast 12.7 mm bullet.

Photo-chromatic glasses are not a new at all. they were already used in 70th for the glasses against nuclear tests light eradiation and in mil optics for nuclear war. And 12.7 mm is too heavy, Mi-28 has such level of defense on its glasses. it can maximum be defended against 7.62 mm regular (non armor-piercing) bullets.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 03 Oct 2009 19:26

http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt66 ... /Navy1.jpg

First impression is ''U.S NAVY fighters''.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 03 Oct 2009 19:40

IFR probes on the left instead of right.