:rolleyes: so cynical F 35 is on offer to Indian Navy how many magazines do you want me to quote ? directly from LM ?

Its INs decision IMO it would either be F 35 or Rafale.

1) LM is not the owner on an FMS sale – The government of the US is
2) US govt has to approve the export – LM can do nothing without their permission
3) A fair amount of the tech developed is by the existing partners – LM cannot pass on that technology without the IP rights of those partners. LM would have to jump through significant amount of loops themselves if they have to offer JSF production line to India. I cannot see LM offering either of the following tech : engine, radar, EO sensors, RAM or some of the worlds most advanced machining tools that can create components to an extremely low tolerance.

The rules to sell to India are the same to sell to anyone else outside the JSF partners.

Without the state departments approval, there is no sales offer on JSF. India has not rejected JSF because it needs to be on offer first.

Firstly… why do I not mention that India is engaged in a partnership with Russia to produce a “fifth generation” PAK-FA? Simple answer! The PAK-FA is not a fifth generation fighter, and will never be unless India funds every paisa of the Russian R&D that is needed to make it so. I happen to know a great deal about the PAK-FA programme. And you’ll have to wait to read about it, which I promise will happen soon.

:rolleyes: I don’t understand what has got into colonel’s head.

^ Valid points, but engine thrusts are pretty different, some 88 kN max for Mig-29K and some 125 kN for Su-33/J-15… scaled kind of proportionally with the respective weights of the two aircraft. So for similar take off conditions (take off position, head wind, ship speed etc) I think the two aircraft should have similar “percentages” of payloads compared with optimal land based take off conditions (?)

True. Su-33 is 150% of MiG-29K in terms of both empty and max take off weight. However the original Su-33 had 200% amount of fuel as compared to the original MiG-29K which allowed it to have a reasonable payload at reasonable ranges, which a modern 29 has managed to equal.

I wonder, if India was offered more of a Kuznetsov sized carrier if they will still have gone for Mig-29K. With IAF’s large commitment to MKIs they could potentially score a deal of Su-33s using similar R&D. The comparatively small flight deck of Vikramditya and the follow on IAC will have been a factor in choosing Mig-29K I think.

Maybe. Maybe not. After all MiG-29K ended up with same levels of customisations the Mki did.

Excellent we’re back on track.

My challenge/question to the payload/range thing; what’s the reasoning behind that? Is it because Mig-29K is lighter or what, because while it is lighter it also naturally has “weaker” engines (therefore smaller thrust to bring a smaller plane into the air compared to flanker)?. Has it to do with the fact flankers have massive internal fuel tanks compared to fulcrums so naturally they will not be full for most take offs?
(The claim is dependent on how procuring and operating a number of fulcrums compares to flankers of course but we can’t exactly produce an accurate capability/cost at all)

Also I read somewhere that during tests Su-33 could take off with full payload from the landing strip position if Kuznetsov was going 30 knots(?)

Currently MiG-29K with three drop tanks offers the same range as fully loaded Su-33, ei 3000Km (from the official info given on RAC MiG-29K and KNAAPO Su-33 page), however that much fuel will have to come off the external payload capacity of MiG-29K which will leave it with near about 2500kg of further payload capacity. A Su-33 fully will be able to carry almost 3100 Kg of ammo when fully loaded with fuel.

MiG-29 when flying on internal fuel has a range of 2000 Km, something the Su-33 can do on nearly 2/3’rd fuel ( full fuel is 12100 liters or nearly 9600 Kg, so 2/3rd fuel = 6400 Kg).

Now a MiG-29K flying on internal fuel can carry 6000 Kg of ammo on its hard points and a Su-33 flying on 2/3rd fuel can carry nearly 6300Kg of ammo (pretty close to the limits of its hard points). That puts them pretty close in terms of range on useful loads (if we consider the ratio of drag forces and their engine thrusts should be pretty close, taking into account their respective sizes and drag on ammo hanging from the wings).

The advantages of Su-33 are pretty obvious, in terms of a greater scope for upgrades and more powerful radar. The real advantage of MiG- 29k comes with its size. If both the aircraft have similar availability rates and same levels of carrier crew training, then the higher number of MiG-29’s per carrier should be able to provide higher number of sorties. If we consider same number of sorties undertaken by both types then MiG-29k comes up with lower operating costs.

@Ken..
good stuff,

But to me the highlighting is in the wrong place!!

should be here:

To me that’s the key peice.
carrier ops is all about Vmc.

If we consider the same availability rates for MiG-29K and Su-33, wouldn’t larger number of MiG-29K offer higher sortie rates considering rest of the conditions to be equal ?

So in short, what you mean is this, if you want to proccure our CV, you would also have proccure our Mig-29Ks?

Hmmm, respectfully it sounds i bit hars to me..
In reality the Mig-29K is a Naval fighter which is at large far cheaper vs F-18, Rafale. And can use Catobar take-off too. Plus India get the additional UPG upgrade for its older mainstay Mig-29 fleet as well, which is a lot of bang for the bucks really.

Is there any image of MiG-29K with necessary landing gear for CATOBAR ops ?

http://pics.livejournal.com/fotografersha/pic/0064qgfp

🙂 🙂 🙂

is it me or does it look like those bays can only hold one missile?

IIIRC it was supposed to hold two meteors and two short range AAMs.