dear Kramer

when I asked that question, I never got a straight answer. However it was 5 years ago and things might have changed. You got to remember back then there were 2 squadrons of MKI and one of K. No MKI operators manual existed. The IAF had to write it. I think the IAF would like two pilots in the cockpit, but this would require more going through initial training to get to that stage. Perhaps the navigators that maybe failed pilot selection were installed as make weights.

I do not know the workload share between front and back. Sorry.

Regards PC

Phil, there used to be a dedicated navigator stream for aircraft like the Canberra which I’m sure you are well aware of. But the curriculum for current navigator stream guys will be totally different since on-board nav systems allow one pilot to easily do the job without needing a dedicated person for that role..so even navigator stream guys will be used as WSOs now (just my opinion) to make the best use of the extra pair of hands and eyes. since the MKI’s Bars PESA is capable of simultaneous air/ground radar sweeps, such a division of labour could mean that a new stream of WSO/Navigators (half-wing) will be raised since its unaffordable to have 2 pilots for 280 odd Su-30MKIs that the IAF eventually will get.

IN wants 4 AEW&C aircraft

What are the options?

since they’ve specifically mentioned carrier based, the only option on the table will be the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye that NG has been pitching to the IN for quite some time now..If they could do with a land-based solution then the Phalcon on an Il-76 or G550 could do well enough although for the Boeing Wedgetail, India was reportedly a prospective customer. the IN could also look to buy some of the EMB-145 based DRDO AEWACS and use them from their land-bases.

Nice picture of the SMT up there, although there are no current plans to put this upgrade into service. The SM upgrade for the Flanker is underway and Su-30MKK, an M upgrade for the Su-33 is earmarked and the Su-34 has orders to fill and that’s about the limit of Kremlin’s budget I think presently.

Su-30MKK is a Chinese variant. What has that got to do with the Kremlin’s budget ? Anyway, MiG has a large (nearly $1 billion) order for the upgrade to 65 IAF MiG-29s to the SMT level, so an IAF customised SMT based upgrade will enter service.

It appears for a variety of reasons the MiG-29 is being phased out in CIS service and has a limited update life in exports. It will remain in service for up to another ten years however, as a second echelon fighter in the 9-13 series form but it is unsuitable for a front line fighter role in the air force of a major power.

unsuitable in its present un-upgraded form. the weak point of the MiG-29 has always been its relatively unsophisticated (by Western standards) electronics and cluttered cockpit. If those issues would be taken care of, you have a potent fighter because the MiG-29’s airframe, handling and maneuverability are never its weak points.

It is a great aircraft and one of my favourites, but there are many comparative problems. One of the things it is most famous for is achieving a parity with digital/FBW aircraft such as the Block 40 F-16 and F/A-18A/B fighters, Mirage 2000 and so on, using analogue translation of boosted hydraulic controls.
This is also one of its great drawbacks in the 4/4++/5 gen environment, in a sense the Fulcrum-A/C can be thought of as a 3++ gen fighter with a 4th gen parity, but it is one the pilot has to work very hard to achieve. A lot of workload normally taken by the digital flight computer is left to the pilot and the hydraulics are sluggish in translation compared to FBW. The Fulcrum is built like a 4th gen fighter, with composites and lerx but it has the controls of an F-4 Phantom and a radar/weapons package not much better.

latest MiG-29 variants (MiG-29K, MiG-35) are quadruplex digital FBW fighters. even the IAF’s 65 MiG-29s will be upgraded with an Integrated Digital FBW control system that will replace the mechanically controlled system. the issues that you talk about will not exist in these fighters. Care-free handling, automatic g-limiters and auto-pilot will be integrated and all that means reduced pilot workload.
You really need to read up on the upgrade that the IAF is giving its MiG-29s. A new Central Digital Computer, a new Data Display System with Multi-function LCD displays, new HUD, new TV signal switching and Digital Processing Unit and a new Video Recording System. Add to that new Navigation equipment with GPS, VOR, ILS/MKR and TACAN as well as a new radio altimeter. Plus new communication equipment as well as data transmission and datalink and the new ECM equipment with Tarang or R119 RWR, Pod-mounted Active Jammer, CMDS and a new day/night laser and TV targeting pod (probably Litening LDP )

And new engines as well with RD-33 Series 3 have much higher MTBO and MTBF figures compared to the original RD-33 on the MiG-29s. That would mean lower maintenance costs per year and higher availability, taking care of the two biggest complaints of the MiG-29s, as well as a relatively smoke-less combustor which means no giving away of the MiG-29’s position by its smoke trail.

Also, these IAF MiG-29s will be getting an airframe life-extension with 1500 hours added to the original 3000 hours fatigue life that the MiG-29 had.

The final problem mostly for export operators is the engines, which are very high maintenance and by that I mean detuning is advised to preserve operational life. German Fulcrums were detuned and the practise was followed by Rumania and you’ll probably find every other independent operator outside the CIS as well. The engines were probably the main reason the MiG-29K was overlooked for the AV-MF (Naval Aviation) for its shipboard complement, in favour of the terrifically expensive Flanker with its infinitely more reliable and trouble free Lyulkas (the other consideration was unrefuelled range).

the MiG-29K doesn’t feature the RD-33 but the RD-33MK Sea Wasp engine that is quite an upgraded engine with much higher MTBF and MTBO times. Non-smoky due to new combustor design and it also has increased thrust over the RD-33. And when you say “terrifically expensive” what does that mean ? the Flanker or the Fulcrum are much cheaper than any western equivalent. the MiG-29K also has much higher range thanks to internal fuel tanks where the louvers used to be. Plus wet hard points, giving the ability to carry wing-drop tanks which many MiG-29s didn’t have.

With detuned engines the power/weight ratio of the Flanker drops to the Hornet class, which takes away its primary advantage and it doesn’t change the relative inefficiency of the max afterburner thrust, which uses fuel very quickly (it has two sets of afterburners for the core airflow and bypass to give it the powerful 81.4kN rating, though closer to 77kN detuned).
Dry operation of a fully tuned RD-33 is the same as an F404 anyway, but it has a lower overall pressure ratio in the HP compressor (loses momentum in sustained manoeuvres), and a low engine life (overhaul meant scrapping in one mechanic’s description I read, but a consistent supply of parts and kits from Russia helps a lot).

You mean “Fulcrum” not “Flanker”. And the detuning may have been done by the Luftwaffe or Romania, but I’ve not heard of the IAF doing anything like that. The last thing they’d want is a detuned engine in the hot and humid conditions of the sub-continent. And now that India has set up a RD-33 Series 3 production line as well as MiG spares depot, the issue of supporting the Fulcrums for another 2 decades should hopefully not run into troubles related to want of spares from Russia.

So even when you take away the problem of its terrible and archaic radar set, navigation system and other avionics installations (only slightly improved in Fulcrum-C, the radar is slightly updated and can track 2 targets…um sometimes, and it has internal ECM jammer), the Fulcrum still falls shy of staying with the head of the pack in Hornet/Viper terms without very skilled piloting under very heavy workloads with very poor SA and just about everything stacked against you.
It has the one bonus of Archers/HMTD but the AIM-9x and Python-4 are better than the Archer by repute and helmet sights are becoming integrated into NATO aircraft.
Other than that it is better than trying to face 4th gen fighters in an F-4, a MiG-21/23, yet still cheaper than an F-16 so it serves as a compromise.

When you talk about “becoming integrated on NATO aircraft” and AIM-9X (only on the most recent F-16 and F-18s) then you should talk about the MiG-29K and MiG-35 as well as the upgraded IAF MiG-29UPG. All these will have a modern HMDS (Thales TopOwl-F) and the MiG-35 will get the R-74 missile, an upgrade to the R-73. Plus, the radar isn’t the N011 but the Zhuk ME. the MiG-29K has the Zhuk-ME, the MiG-29UPG has the Zhuk-ME2 and the MiG-35 will get the AESA Zhuk-AE. so the “archaic radar” is an issue only with the non-upgraded Fulcrums that will remain in service worldwide. Upgraded and newer MiG-29 variants do not have any of the issues that you just described relating to avionics, weapons, radar, MMI, etc.

The thing about the Fulcrum which is magnificent is how it serves what it was designed to do. The vast problem here is everybody trying to use the Fulcrum like a western fighter and it just wasn’t ever meant to do that.

It was built to a very specific requirement, to operate from well supported although rough surfaced frontal airfields near to the combat arena in order to counter NATO F-16 aircraft in use by tactical air forces if the Cold War turned hot. When attached to an Army as part of the Soviet Frontal Aviation divisions, such as in Poland or East Germany its capabilities are excellent, you’re virtually in CWC ranges with e/a immediately upon take off and its performance in this realm can at least compete with Block 40 F-16 on equal terms and probably in greater numbers (less than 450 is being operated by the RuAF now but the Soviets had over 800 in service just before collapse and most of these at first contact Frontal defence bases).

The Fulcrums problems only begin when you export them or stop funding continual maintenance/upgrade programs pretty much around the clock whilst you’ve got them in service. Those are Cold War measures the Russians can no longer afford, and export customers just can’t do even if they had the money.

upgrades to the Fulcrums systems will allow it to be used as any contemporary western fighter. All the stuff that you describe doesn’t apply anymore..looks like you’ve read books from the early 1990s describing the issues with the Fulcrum but you haven’t kept pace with the more recent development of the Fulcrums. In IAF service at least, the Fulcrum will see its full potential being exploited.

The Flanker is much more like a western contemporary, the Fulcrum is much more like a manned MRM SAM site and not really contemporary with complex modern export fighters or the current combat environment. They still work for CIS border defence, but any expensive upgrade program is doomed from the beginning by their inherent design limitations, ones the Flanker doesn’t have despite being so much more expensive. Upgrading the Fulcrum, say a digital/FBW SMT with all new modern avionics throughout is going to be such a big job you might as well just equip 0.75 times SM Flankers and call it even, call it better in fact.

nonsense. Just absurd nonsense. the SMT upgrade that was available for export itself tackled most of the MiG-29’s issues and the variants that we now see have none of the troubles that you describe. The cost of upgrading vanilla Fulcrums to the MiG-29UPG level for the IAF cost them just $13-14 million a piece, which is a bargain considering how intensive the upgrade is. Compare that to the cost of their Mirage-2000 upgrade and it was more than twice that price. For that you’re getting a fighter with all-new avionics, radar, increased internal fuel, new engines, airframe overhaul and ability to be a true multi-role fighter.

Yeah, good thread, IN SHARs are an interesting topic. When I read that 17 out of 30 SHARS delivered have been lost it reminded me of the Yak-38’s safety record, which must be the worst of any modern combat aircraft, must be the nature of the beast I guess.

I agree with what you say above, I recall reading about a USN pilot ejecting from a submerged A-7 during the Vietnam war. I done some Google Fu to check it out, but I found this Youtube clip of a Yak-38 instead. Sorry for being off-topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz8fOZxIdVg&feature=related

the Royal Navy’s attrition record with its Sea Harriers wasn’t particularly great either with around 27-28 Sea Harriers having been lost.

You can see the number of ejections (that may not include the entire list of SHar accidents in case there was no ejections during a fatal crash, more informed members may correct me if I’m wrong) on this link to Martin Baker’s ejection history list on the Sea Harrier.

In one year (1982) alone, the RN lost 6 Sea Harriers to accidents where pilots ejected.

Harrier GR7/9 have been modified quite a bit whereas Sea Harriers didn’t get any engine mods.

The combination of unique flight handling, high pilot workload and an engine that wasn’t capable of working at its optimum in hot and humid climes meant that this was a fighter that was particularly susceptible to high accident rates.

Indeed, the fact that the Sea Harrier’s engine did not provide adequate thrust for operations year round in hot climates (as mentioned in a report tabled in the UK Parliament) meant that the IN was operating SHars at their limits, with the Arabian Sea being a hot and humid operating environment nearly year round.

link

The current engine of the Sea Harrier does not provide adequate thrust to enable operations to be conducted year around in hot climates, such as those encountered in the Gulf. There would be a very high level of technical risk in fitting new engines, since the Sea Harrier was not designed to take the more powerful engine which is being fitted to some of the Harrier GR9s. (The Sea Harrier is an early generation Harrier I—similar to the RAF’s previous Harrier GR3s—whilst the only Harriers operating world-wide with the upgraded engines are the extensively modified Harrier IIs, such as Harrier GR7/9s). Specifically, the main technical risks are associated with the extensive airframe modifications that would be required and the adverse effects on the engine due to different intakes.[181]
An MoD study in 2000 found that (even if feasible) it would cost £230 million to integrate Mk-107 engines on just 11 Sea Harriers.[182] Sir Jock Stirrup considered that the necessary improvements to the Sea Harrier would have been “extremely expensive,” and perhaps impossible.[183]

what this article also states is that while the SHar was being touted as a multi-role aircraft, its primary responsibility was air-defence.

75. Although the Royal Navy’s website declares that the Sea Harrier is the UK’s “only true multi-role aircraft,” the MoD told us that it is optimised to provide air defence of the Fleet.[170] Indeed, we noted in our report on the lessons of Kosovo that the Sea Harrier was not given any ground-attack duties, but rather provided air-defence patrols to allow other aircraft to concentrate on bombing sorties.[171] First in-service in 1979, the Sea Harrier was upgraded in 1993 with the Blue Vixen multi-target tracking radar[172] and two years later with the AMRAAM medium-range missile for its primary air-defence role.[173] A dozen years ago, a report by a previous Defence Committee on this upgrade programme described how these “air-defence and anti-ship”capability improvements (running four years late) pre-dated the Falklands conflict but were given added impetus by that experience.[174]

thanks for the snaps kramer. I still have that issue of frontline carefully preserved. 🙂

any chance that you could post scans of that article also ? Frontline was a mag that was not like today’s rags which are generally more on hype and less on any substance.

Hope to see some great pics from Exercise Garuda..RSAF F-16 Block 52s, AdA Rafales, Mirage-2000s and Su-30MKIs..what a mix !

some great pics of the MiG-29 “Baaz” (Eagle) induction ceremony into the IAF dating back to 1987..the camouflage was different in those days, nowadays its all over low-viz gray. its fitting that these beauties are going to serve another 20-25 years in the IAF. We’ll still see the original front fuselage that has now changed with the MiG-29K and MiG-35..

Air Chief Marshal Dennis La Fontaine was wearing khaki coloured uniform..that was before the IAF changed its uniform colour to sky blue..