JangBoGoI read a similar article many moons ago where Western pilots discussed their experiences with MiG-29.
Apparently the early MiG-29 cockpit was very labour intensive with a lot of “heads down” actions (i.e. looking at instrument panel) compared to Western aircraft of the time (this was pre MFD).
The author wondered whether this would be an issue with pilots who have been trained to fly such aircraft from the outset.
That is why any comparative reports/article from pilots of other aircrafts with 100-500hrs of familiarization on the MiG-29s should not be based to view the aircrafts performance w.r t to the pilots original aircrafts. These pilots will never be able to fly and fight with the MiG-29s like the way well trained competent MiG-29 pilots will do. The best you can use such articles is to wipe your ar$e.
JangBoGoVery nice view, gives the width of flight deck….just wished the designers had kept that island on the original ship to the extreme edges.
too bad she doesn’t have any AD weapons…:mad:
JangBoGoMaybe during next week we might see her sail for the next phase of sea trials, which was said to start during mid-july.
JangBoGo^^ looks like they take out the 3 aircrafts on to the deck during day time and then return them into the hanger…maybe giving them some sun bath. 😀
JangBoGoPicture time folks….more have arrived….. 😀
JangBoGoNo, just touch-and-goes
😉
or may be even a pre-landing check…??
They might have flown over the deck to check the wing-tip clearance of the Flankers from the Island and probably the feasibility to use Su-33s (in lighter weight configuration) during the second phase of sea trials…. what say, any chance ?
JangBoGowhat Jangbogo wants to hear is you telling him reasons why the Vikramaditya would sink like the titanic due to some kind of flaw in its design.
hmmmm……..
… that is not what I meant. I wanted to know from Snake if he by any chance was equating Vikie to the Titanic fate (i.e negative remarks) or did he meant anything else with that comment.
JangBoGoDepends on the part being redesigned or optimized- some primary structures can yield significant weight reductions, whereas small sized composite panels may yield a pound or two each. But in the overall scheme, it is worthwhile.
would that be enough to really make any diffence?
There is no such thing that you had better start with a metallic structure and only then can you reduce weight- sometimes there may be very little savings from moving to composites. Also, you are totally underestimating the effort required in changing from a metallic structure and panels to composites. Its “unconventional” wings are actually something that ADA/DRDO now understand very well and if anything, will make the LCA’s performance quite good thanks to very low wing loading.
How come, for eg…. the wings section, changing over from metal to composite panels might give a good margin. I think there is much margins when going from an inlitial all metal panel and frame to the composite one.
I don’t remember the figure exactly, but Su-35 did have lot of savings from such an approach and the Tu-204SM which gained around/over 3tons in weight reduction with use of composites over the earlier Tu-204. LCA is a smaller aircraft, so there wont be so huge a figure, but I think it would be significant enough to make a difference.
The issues that have delayed the LCA haven’t related to structures for the most part, so I find it a bit hard to understand why every 6 months or so we have someone coming and telling us that going the JF-17 way, meaning with much simpler alloy/metallic construction would’ve been a better approach.
It may not be the main cause of delay, but will it help in meeting the original requirements of a low-cost fighter that can be churned out in good numbers? And what about the maintenance issue? India have not had any aircraft with so much composites covering large area and any negative aspect of it during operational life is yet to be seen.
Had India done so, the IAF would’ve been cribbing about how the LCA was low-tech and they’d have wanted all those changes on the LCA Mk2 anyway, leading to doubling the effort that is currently being expended on the LCA Mk2. Besides, without all the skills and knowledge gained on the aero-structures from the LCA program, India would’ve been in no position to even contribute to the PAK-FA – and the learning curve associated with composites would have had to be added to the AMCA’s timelines.
Simple-desined fighter does not have to mean low-tech fighter. LCA Mk2 probably shows that the initial approach to the fighter definition was not right. Mk2 is going to be longer & heavier even before the Mk1 entered service. The only other fighter that I remember having got longer is the F-18, but it was after its predecessor served for many years.
w.r.t to PAK-FA, AFAIK, there is nothing other than funds that India is contributing..
What the IAF is getting (albeit late) is a fighter that structurally, is almost on par with other 4th generation fighters and way ahead of 3rd generation fighters like the JF-17.
I don’t know what you mean by a 3rd gen fighter. Chinese designate their a number less than what we do. So JF-17/10 etc is their 3rd Gen and J-20 their 4th Gen. Is that what you meant?
If not can you please explain on what basis the two aircraft are of different generation by breaking up in terms of…
Structure
Materials Used
Manufacturing
Avionics
Engine
Performance
this wil be my last post on the matter…
JangBoGoJang,
What you are not understanding is that light fighters are not enough for the IAF anymore. That ship has sailed.
Cost effectiveness is all very well in peacetime. In war, it costs lives.
Teer, I do understand and did take into account that we are having enough heavies and more are going to come in. What is not good is the neglect and the very low priority being assigned for single-engined low-cost fighters. btw, plz adrrss me as BoGo.
The PLAAF fields a force almost exclusively made up of heavy and medium fighters, as far as the IAF threat perception is concerned. Its J-7s dont count for much in an Indian scenario because they lack the range/payload to effectively loiter or enter Indian airspace for deep strikes. The PLAAFs 200+ Flanker platforms and similar numbers of J-10s are the real problem. Similarly, Pakistan will have around a 100+ medium fighters (mix of F-16s and J-10s) plus a large force of light fighters.
I’ve replied to the matter above to BA. But 200+ Flankers is simply not enough strength to face India. J-10 are medium units and they don’t have the range either to get inside deep. Though they can cause harm with stand-off weapons, which can be true in our case also. Then the fact on ground is that J-10s are not anyway in large numbers and all are currently (& for foreseeable future) meant for the eastern side of China. China have not yet devoted J-10 on a permanent basis to engage India.
In a two front scenario, the IAF has to effectively counter BOTH forces. This means the IAF fighter fleet, which has to be flexible enough to be dual tasked to either zone of operations, should be capable of taking on any and every plane either AF flies. The era of carefully husbanded “assets”, deployed to make a decisive breakthrough (e.g. Mirage 2000’s and their LGBs at Kargil) will not work in an intense conflict with both sides, and with the PLAAF bringing both numbers and technology into play.
First of all, do you really think, there is going to be a two front war?
I don’t, at least there won’t be a sustained two front war, if ever if gets soo worse. Because, a dozen of PAF fighters shot down and an armor push means India will be facing the N-clear stick. So on the western front any outcome is going to be a stalemate!
If China can convert Pakistan from the American cultivated Islamic state to a Communist state, we can talk about having a good bout (w/o using N-weapons) by employing all the assets.
The Sukhoi class heavy platform simply brings a superior range/payload capability to the table versus a light fighter like the LCA. The unrefueled range of the former is 3000 km with a light payload (4 AAMs). The latter’s would be around half of that or lesser in a similar comparison (w/o tanks). The Sukhoi has a radar with an aperture of 1 mtr class dia. The LCA’s is around 0.65mtr dia. The overall payload of a Flanker class platform is around 8 tons, the LCA’s is 3T.. the reason these numbers matter is because they add upto a synergistic effect. A Sukhoi squadron can carry out long range (150 km) missile strikes on A2G targets, do CAS, do Air Superiority missions, escort, EW and a host of roles, with minimal support from assets like tankers etc against most targets.
True. There is no disputing the capability of MKI or how it have transformed the capability of the IAF. But we need smaller fighters and 3T is not a bad load for LCA employed in AA duties. Lets employ it where it can excel rather than pushing it into someones shoes.
The point is that the LCA/light class platform has a basic need which it fulfills in the Indian context, which is quick availability for missions like point defense, CAS etc. Thanks to its small size and design features, it will also have lowered logistics footprint, quick availability, widespread dispersal across the plethora of MiG-21 tactical bases, and is meant for multirole missions in the TBA.
And don’t you think thatz is what we need on the western front and which can be employed in the Eastern side also? Every mission need not have to be long-range mission, point defence, CAS are all bread and butter duty.
Now, in the case of Pakistan, since its geographically next door and lacks depth, the LCA can pretty much do a lot of missions. But against China, it will have limitations in terms of deep strike and payload carrying ability, beyond the Tactical Battle Area and attacking forward air bases.
Thats what I’m saying we doesnt need to ba an all heavy force. Employ the lighter ones on western side with a smaller number/required number of heavies for longer-heavier missions. On the eastern side, why should it need to have long-range mission? It can always do point-defence …
Light fighters if they need to take on the role of “heavies”, well their support assets increase exponentially. A strike package of LCAs, if it wanted to do the same as a strike package of Flankers in terms of range/payload, will require tankers & other support. This sort of complexity is a pain for wartime commanders.
Its not the problem of the lighter aircraft. Employ them in duties in which they can excel. On that basis, to neglect the smaller single-engined fighter is not a good idea.
JangBoGoHave you had a look at how many Flanker types the PLAAF is inducting or planning to induct through reverse engineered Flanker clones?
What you’re stating would make sense if the IAF had no threats of the PLAAF type- if the IAF had only the PAF to contend with, then yes it would make sense to have fewer Su-30MKIs and more medium single engined fighters like the Mirage-2000 or medium twin engined fighters like the MiG-29, since the PAF will almost completely be comprised of medium and light fighter types.
Agree to the points on the Eastern front. But we are likely to have over 270 x Su-30MKI for the duty. Western front will hardly require heavy fighters in large numbers and the light-medium will do the job. And then there is 250 more PAK-FA/FGFA coming which is going to that make it a good 520 x Heavy MRCA in few decades.
Moreover, how many Flankers do Chinese have in their inventory and how much of these do they devote on the Indian side? Not much. In the current situation and in the foreseeable future their first priority is going to be on their Eastern side to face off the Taiwanese, US, Japanese and S.Korean forces. In short their hands are more than full. Much more than what India faces. I’d say, the Chinese are actually short of fleet strength to face off even the above said alliance, let alone opening another front with India.
If you say that China have a fleet of over 1000 x Flankers, I’d give merit to the theory of Chinese Flankers as a severe threat for India’s eastern front, because they will then be able to devote atleast 6 squadrons on the Indian side permanently. But as of now, they simply does not have enough assets & capability to fight a two front war on East and West, just like India does not have resources nor the capability to fight a two front war. The Chinese threat on India have been blown out of proportion. There is not going to be any 62 repeat and any outcome of such an event is going to have a different outcome, which Chinese also know very well and they won’t be the initiator of a conflict with India.
That would work out cheaper operationally; although capability wise, it would also impact the IAF since they lack the nautical range as well as the sensor range and the payload capability of the Su-30MKIs.
why should the nautical range be an issue, the smaller fighter are meant for shorter roles and w.r.t western front, it will secure the skies well. For long range strikes, heavies can be employed. Let the smaller guys do what they can do best without burdening them with heavier duties.
In the case of sensor range, will it become even an issue in this net-centric age??
If it does matter, then Rafale was a bad choice due to its small nose that limits any larger units. In that case, LCA MK2, MiG-29K will its larger nose will be able to accommodate much larger and powerful AESA radar and out-range the Rafales by the time it enters full scale duty in IAF.
You’re also not taking into account the much higher safety and lower attrition rates of twin-engined fighters like the Su-30MKI in IAF service. Nearly 150 are in service and only 3 have been lost in over a decade of operations where their utilization in flight hours per year is nearly twice that of the MiG-21s of an earlier era.
Comparing MiG-21 and Su-30MKI is not fair….they are from completely different era. Newer engines are far more reliable and the systems are much more matured now which can help in pointing out the cause and for correct remedial actions. If we want to compare single-engined for attrition, lets do it for the Tejas Mk1 service life…
Since the attrition has been brought in, which one do you think will be more absorb-able loss for the IAF in terms of financial & operational strength? ——> Lighter cost-effective MRCA which can be produced/inducted in larger numbers (for which LCA was planned) or the Heavy MRCA (with two pilots).
My view is that a lighter low cost fighter should be the one to make up the pyramidal base of any large AF which is likely to face a war of attrition. Russia is an exception here, but we don’t have to duplicate it as both our geography & resources to support a conflict are different.
JangBoGoIs there anyone else who feels that Sukhoi need to develop/modify this with a conventional wings and sell it on the internal market?
It will help the Russia AF to retain the higher-end PAK-FA with itself and sell another heavy aircraft with internal weapons bay on the international market.
JangBoGo^^
medal64,
I don’t know if you misunderstood what I wrote or maybe I couldn’t get what you meant correctly. Anyway this is what I meant…
Tupolev was the hardest hit as the Tu-204 was soon to enter serial production. But events turned everything upside down…… Tu-204 was a very promising product positioned in the volume market and destined to generate good sales. I believe the halt to its charted plan was the biggest blow that Russian commercial aviation industries had….
MiG also had a big blow as their two important projects had to wind up due to non-availability of funds. But unlike Tu-204, the M & K were in development/testing phase and had not reached the serial production stage (AFAIK).
Yakovlev had two promising and very significant projects getting wind up due to the financial & political troubles.
They also succesfully continued the development of their new products with the limited state support, such as;
1-Yak-130
2-MÄ°G-29M/K-MÄ°G-35/D
3-Tu-204SM
4-IL-476And also on the engine development MMPP Salyut is a real success story with its latest upgraded AL-31 series engines and their role at the develpment of the second stage fifth generation engine…
Yeah agree that with limited funds (generated from small sales) they still managed to get these projects off the ground. But on the negative side, too much time was lost…which in other words mean loss of probable orders.
JangBoGoI didn’t know that the Islamic Republic of Iran was a “Western” country – but I’m sure that country also used its “supports” when they could.
But let’s not upset mrmalaya any further.
when did Iran start using the F-15?
In the intital quote I made also there was no mention of F-14.
JangBoGoWhat do you mean by “alone.” Israeli F-15s against Syria, Iranian F-14s against Iraq?
So you are saying that the Western AF use/ed their fighters against their opponents without any supports??
JangBoGoSurely it’s too late now to review the selection process and scrap the result.
Yes, review the selection in favor of Typhoon is a big NO.
But cancellation/suspending the deal due to high cost…. is possible.
MSphere,
I got what you meant, but don’t think enlarging the nose cone will solve the problem. I feel the front fuselage itself will need to be redesigned for accommodating a larger unit.
Sign In
