Nice pics. Although you have to wonder where Carlo Kopp gets such in-depth technical information….
What about the rear quadrants? I thought the PAK-FA was supposed to have 360-deg situational awareness? Why are there no antennae for the non-leading wing edges?
Lastly, I’ve been meaning to ask this for a while now. Why wasn’t this helo offered by Eurocopter for the IAF’s light utility helicopter tender? It seems a better match for the Ka-226 than the Fennec.
The MiG-35 has a very prominent conical tail spine. I haven’t noticed the same for rear shots of the MiG-29K.
Speaking of which, how will the RuAF MiG-35 differ from the version offered to the IAF? I imagine the Western-origin equipment will be replaced by Russian analogues? Like Schel-3USH HMS instead of Thales Topsight-E, and a KNIRTI EW suite instead of the Italian one?
Yep need to get rid of the competitive bids.
Funny how the main purpose of competitive bids is to
-Get better deals from the sellers
-Have a fair and transparent process instead of showing favoritism to a single vendor
And yet in Indian defence deals it achieves the opposite because
-As the years pass by prices only increase owing to inflation, closing of production lines etc.
-Having multiple vendors in competition only increases the potential for corruption and favoritism since the competitors are tempted to grease the government official’s palms to get their own product through.
Its a repeat order, not a fresh contract.
It’s a good thing the IAF first obtained Mi-8s decades ago. Likewise with the Su-30s orginally contracted for in the 90s. In today’s political environment a new order would have had to go through a global open tender for medium helos and heavy fighters.:D
Indian programs are always… ehm… punctual.
How many decades will they take to buy them? :diablo:
Actually, defence deals were moving at a steady(if not fast) rate upto the era of NDA regime. At least then it was guaranteed for any deal to actually get resolved after a few years of trials and negotiations instead of risking cancellation/re-tendering all the time.
Unfortunately the present AK Antony Defence Administration is rather wary of any potential scams and controversies(real or perceived). So everything gets checked, re-checked, debated and documented to the Nth degree and even then there’s always a very real chance the whole deal will be scrapped and restarted owing to some or the other allegation of corruption.:mad:
To be fair Antony has actually admitted fear of corruption has set back procurement plans by a great deal.:(
Is it just me or is the engine spacing and tail spine much bigger in the MiG-35 than in any prior Fulcrum variants including the MiG-29K/M?
http://ttvnol.vcmedia.vn/images/52/dsdsad_1320142965.png
Upgrade A-50 interior.
The same layout as before, but with digital panels/LCD displays? Works.:D
Any pics of the crew rest areas?
But where is the logic? Does anyone here have all the performance parameters, as it applies to carrier aviation, to really say, Su-33 is clearly superior to MiG-29? I don’t think so. Performance is more than a bigger radar, and more potential internal fuel space.
RuAF opted for minimal Su-33 overhaul, when they could have gone for a much more thorough one. Seems to me like they made a conscious decision as a result of decades of Su-33 operation
Aren’t the Flankers generally accepted to have superior aerodynamic performance, cockpit visiblity, range et al over the Fulcrum? Plus room for more powerful radars, EW systems, a greater range/payload, especially with short takeoffs and so on…
Likewise the RuAF(what you’re referring to above is the AV-MF I believe) has gone for only limited upgrades on many of their older aircraft: MiG-29s and Flankers with only Zhuk-M radars instead of Bars/Zhuk-A and similar older avionics, Su-24 bulk upgrades etc. If you’re planning to replace them before long there’s no need for an absolute cutting edge upgrade.
The Su-33s are due for replacement around 2015-16, so a limited overhaul is all they needed. At present their main function is to retain the Russian Navy’s naval aviation core competency.
And with regard to all the arguments on the WS-10, all I’d like to add is that new aircraft aren’t rolled off the assembly line at the same rate as cars and that a couple of squadrons worth of WS-10-equipped planes may very well be an indication of serial or at least limited series production.
Maybe. Maybe not. After all MiG-29K ended up with same levels of customisations the Mki did.
Likewise the Su-27K design would have been ‘MKI’d for the Indian Navy’s needs had it been chosen.
What is this based on though? Just because it is bigger =/= better in everything. They both certainly have strong points.
Since we lack actual performance figures for all modes of operation, I think this kind of judgement is pointless speculation.Like I said, if the Su-33 was so much better, why not upgrade them? Would be easy, given similar upgrades have made their way to the VVS. I think the Navy made a conscious choice based on their experience with Su-33 on Kuznetsov.
It’s logical that a Flanker airframe would be superior in performance to a Fulcrum airframe with comparable avionics and systems.
That said the Su-33s are nearing the end of their useful life. As per previous articles upgrading and refurbishing them was(and possibly still is) on the table. It may be that the degree of upgrades/engine replacement/airframe refurbishment for a few more years of service was not seen to be as cost-effective as replacing them with new aircraft that could last upto 30 years.
Mi-28N is not yet fully ready, I suspected Apache would win. When the platform matures this decade, it should have a number of advantages over the Apache.
I’m frankly surprised at the Apache’s victory because I thought the Mi-28 had more-than-adequate performance for Indian needs plus a distinct cost advantage.
There was also the promise of future upgrades, like a new laser/IR turret for the Crysanthema ATGM, new engines and (according to Igorr) a wing-launched UAV.
Getting back to the actual topic at hand
-From what I’ve read the MiG-29K was designed from the start as a more multi-role kind of fighter and the AV-MF planned to acquire both Su-33(for air-to-air) and MiG-29K(for air-to-ground). With the collapse of the USSR there was only funding for one type and so the Su-33 was chosen(Partly due to superior platform performance, partly political influence).
-When India bought the Gorshkov it went for the MiG-29K over some Su-33MKI because of small wingtip clearances wrt the superstructure as well as the MiG-29K’s smaller storage footprint(The Su-33 may have opening i.e. folding nose and tailcone, but so does the MiG-29K, and from what I’ve read they are only folded for maintenance and not routine storage).
-How does the MiG-29K compare with vanilla Su-33? Thanks to the latter’s obsolete systems and lack of BVR weapons the new MiG would obviously have the advantage. But on the other hand it would lose to a new J-15 which is like an Su-33 with modern equipment and armament.
Given there are few ports in India that can even support the 45000-ton Vikramaditya I’d prefer if the Indian Navy had gone for 3-4 smaller carriers in the ADS-1 size range instead of a 60000-ton ADS-2.
And the F-35B would have been a great asset for the ski-jump carriers. Oh well…