IAF’s MiG-21 upgrade was definitely not the best possible version MiG could have developed and they intended it as a upgrade with the least cost and as a stop gap measure till the LCA arrived. It is not to say that Bison is not capable. Itz a capable asset now, but they could have gone for much deeper modernization with the likes of phased array and a cockpit layout similar to that of LCA. A similar cockpit layout may have allowed for the pilots from the Bison to convert to the LCA much more easier, when it becomes available.

MiG-21 upgrade options, with google translate

Basic options for upgrading the MiG-21:

MiG-21-93. This option involves the installation of the MiG-21bis of the new weapons control system (VCS) based on multi-function radar, “Lance.” The plane armed with rockets, “air – air,” a family of medium-range R-27 RVV-AE and short-range R-73 e. For operations on land and sea targets – X-25M missiles, guided bombs KAB-500Kr. Set: the display on the windshield, helmet-mounted target designation system (NSC), multifunction displays (MFD), inertial navigation system (INS / CND), a digital air data system (SHS), means of electron beam, the power system, registration, western avionics and weapons ( on request), etc. Possible move to communication standard MIL-1553B.

MiG-21-98-1. In this variant, the MiG-21M pilot and improved review board established by the automated control system and dialogue with the crew of top-level (BASS) and small-size radar “Mosquito”, the power consumption is lower than that of “Lance”. The composition of arms and other equipment close to the MiG-21-93. Refinement of the box installation of new drives and generators are not required.

MiG-21-98-2. This option enables the use of R-73 e on all MiG-21.

MiG-21UM-97. Option modernization of MiG-21UM, providing training and training of pilots of MiG-21 and MiG-93-21-98-1.

For all the MiG-21 offered to reduce the visibility of the work in the radar range, the installation of new communications, navigation, equipment and containers, etc.

also, the combat enhancement given by the upgrade from the MiG-21Bis

The increase combat effectiveness

The effectiveness of the modernization is characterized by the growth of the integral index – ratio of military action potential at air targets, ground targets and the total for the fighters.

Particularly important is the growth of long-range rocket from the battle provided by radar and RVV-AE missiles. At the same time in its capabilities upgraded “MiGs”, especially the MiG-23-98-1, greater than F-16C and “Mirage” 2000-5. Using the NSC, the radar in the “vertical” missile R-73 e and means of electron beam significantly increase the possibility of maneuvering fighter in close combat.

another translate

МиГ-21-93. This version basically means arming MiG-21bis with new weapons control system on the basis of multifunctional radar “Kopye”. Aircraft is armed with mid-range AA missiles R-27 family, RVV-AE and close-range R-73E. For ground and sea targets – missiles H-25M, bombs KAB-500KR.
It is being established: indication on the helmet glass, helmet targeting system, multifunctional displays, inertial navigation system, digital system of air signalling, radio-electronic complex, power supply systems, registration systems, western avionics and weapons ( on the customers request ), etc. Possible switching-on to MIL-1553B contact standards.

МиГ-21-98-1. In this version on MiG-21M pilot has better survey, and it is equipped with automated system of control and dialog with upper level crew and small “Moskit” radar, which is less demanding than “Kopye”. Armament and equipment is similar to the one on MiG-21-93. Modification of driver boxes and installation of new generators is not needed.

МиГ-21-98-2. This version ensures the application of R-73E missiles on all MiG-21.

МиГ-21УМ-97. Version of MiG-21UM modification, ensuring pilots preparations and trainings for MiG-21-93 and MiG-21-98-1.

MIKOYAN LAUNCHES MIG-21-98, Upgrade Update

In a parallel development with the MiG-21-93 – an upgrade for the MiG-21bis – the Mikoyan design bureau (ANPK MiG) has revealed it is working on a further modernisation programme aimed at older versions of the MiG-21. The upgrade is called MiG-21-98. The basic difference between the versions is the radar installed. The MiG-21-93 uses the Phazotron Kopyo (Spear) radar which is too large to be installed inside the nose of older versions like MiG-21M/MF, the most widespread of MiG-21s remaining in service. The MiG-21-98 will have an improved and smaller radar unit. Several proposals are now being considered, including Russian NIIP Osa (Wasp) – see JDU, Vol II No.20 p4 – and Phazotron Moskit (Mosquito), as well as the Thomson-CSF/RCM RS-400 Compact. The choice of radar depends on the customer as well as on the availability of the radar (no one of them is ready as yet). The new MiG-21-98 proposal is based on the experience with MiG-29SMT modernisation (see JDU, Vol II Nos.10 and 12). It will have a better man-machine interface (cockpit displays) and avionics than the MiG-21-93, based on the MiG-29M technology of 1980s. Mikhail Korzhuyev, general designer of ANPK MiG, says the first of the two Russian MiG-21-93 test beds is being adapted in the Mikoyan workshop to receive one of the new radars, thus becoming an MiG-21-98 prototype. The work should be completed by spring 1999. It is estimated that there are 4,500 MiG-21s in use (including about 1,000 of Chinese manufacture) in 32 countries around the world. Of these, ANPK MiG has identified 18 potential customers, as a the potential market for modernisation – excluding users with under

The complete article appears in the following publication:
Publication Title Jane’s International Defence Review
Publication date Dec 11, 1998

Look Ma, no hands !!!

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/9194/56b8cc2575a7.jpg

Good one. But then, MiGs and most of the Soviet aircrafts also had the capability to land on their own without pilot input. Sort of like unmanned combat aircraft landing. 😉

I said nearly the same (but not the same), and thats the MiG-29KUB/M2 version with the two seats, not the older ones as in your picture.

now compare that with the tiny F-16 and F-15

http://aiaa.pr.erau.edu/past/Edwards98/F16_01.jpg

F-16 in that photo is probably at a lower level…
Below pic of MiG-29 & F-15 also doesn’t give correct perspective. But it surely is not ‘nearly’ the same size of F-15. Its smaller.

Not sure what you mean by ‘full length hangar extending from the stern to the front flight deck’. This wording suggests the hangar is below the flight deck, while in reality it is located at the level of the flight deck in the main superstructure (serving flight decks at both ends through 2 sets of doors).

Thanks for your watchful eyes. But my mistake that I didn’t mentioned it clearly.
By full length hanger I meant the entire space available on that deck level inside the superstructure to be converted for hanger/stores/aviation related purpose.

Below I’ve attached the drawings. I’m not 100% sure how the hanger looks like, but the red rectangle marked (overlapped by yellow) is how the current hanger looks like most probably and accommodates upto 4 helos. Yellow markings is the proposed conversion I meant.

So briefly, conversion will look like this
1) New flight deck in the front on the same deck level as the aft.
2) Hanger enlargement (as illustrated) will allow for the 6-8 helo capacity that I mentioned.
3) Earlier ramp won’t be needed anymore as the flight deck are on the same level. So additional space will be created beneath, which can be used for accommodating other needs.

Additionally, the front refueling & replenishment space can be done away with a single one, possibly at the rear. Instead I intend to place on board 1-2 trucks (like on Kuz, but smaller GAZ-66 size) for the duty, which can be accommodated inside the new enlarged aviation space inside the super structure.
The below deck boats can be accommodated on to the side with launch arms like that of INS Vikramaditya which takes less space.

I see you’ve raised the forward flight deck by 1 deck, but the space below isn’t at the same level as the original hangar. In the original, there is a ramp forward of the main superstructure going down one deck, from hangar to flight deck. So the hangar is inside the main superstructure, at the level of the rear flight deck. If, in the modified ship, the hangar is below the flight decks and going from stern to just short of the bow, how is transport from the hangar deck to the flight deck organized? Installation of an elevator between the new hangar deck below both the forward and aft flight decks, taking the heli’s up inside the main superstructure into what used to be the hanger (but what is now a staging area). If no elevator solution, I don’t quite see how you’ve increased hangar capacity from 4 to 6-8 as the main superstructure in which it is originally located remains unchanged.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/1174.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/nk1174mm1.jpg

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/rogov-DNSN8205957.JPG

All very valid points on good observation and hope my above explanation would have already cleared up that questions.

Somewhere it did cross my mind about an under-deck hanger (as you mistook), which would have allowed the helo capacity to be increased to 12-16 helos. But it would have defeated the main role the ship is meant for. So the under deck helo storage was never an option in the modernization/conversion that I meant. Sorry for the earlier confusion.

For such a scenario, the elevator could have been accommodated to the port/starboard or in the center adjacent to the superstructure. But an under-deck option was never there in the first case. So complicating the conversion with a lift was never on board.

I’ve made the conversion as simple as possible by utilizing the available space to the maximum. This is an upgrade which I believe is doable & practical and if funds be provided, the work can be completed in 2-3 years max. Putting back the two (?) units in reserve would be a good investment and can serve the Black Sea fleet and other areas very well. This can be used effectively in addition to the Mistrals.