JSRI did say IF 😉
As far as late stage bidding, the FRP bids have note even started yet. India, with it’s low cost of labor, would give it a cost edge in future bidding.
low cost labor for building stealth fighter?. that labor simply not exist.
JSRJSR
your knowledge of airplane is as little as a woodcarver’s knowledge on steel making.
Please do understand, weight is not the first order factor in range.
33% greater empty weight is too big a difference with same amount of internal fuel. You simply not admiting that your clearly wrong.
weight does impact range.
for example 5 ton of fuel will give you 2000km range in MIG-29K. but 9.5 ton of fuel will give you 3000km range on Su-33K. so MIG-29K is 50% more efficient. because Su-33 is 50% heavier.
Weight of plane has big impact on range.
you cannot have 20 ton F-14D with internal fuel similar to F-18E and still expect similar range. no matter how much F-18E is compromised.
F-14 can only pull 6.5g. F-14 is limited to 15km ceiling.
MIG-29K does not have those compromises. It does not need canards. and can fly higher and faster than any Naval plane in current operations.
JSRa bigger total takeoff weight would mean bigger fuel tankerage.
range is really biased towards bigger airplanes. weted area is only the fraction of the total drag.
it’s a useless argument, as buddy air-refuel would not be useful in operational sense. hard pressed find a past operation, or a foreseenable future scenario where that would be operationally needed. RuN and IN lacks the C&C infrastructure for long range carrier borne strikes like those practiced by USN on daily basis during Operation Enduring Freedom… or Midway for that matter.
what is meant by long range strike without support of airforce assets.
MIG-29K can potentially lunch 300-200km Kh-35/KH-31 at 1200km distance from carrier. so the strike range is already 1500km.
These MIG-29K in larger # can provide escort to Blackjack/Bear for strike. Putting more aircraft on carrier has its own advantages.
JSRso what’s so obsolete in F-14D’s “construction” than F-15?
The fact more F-15 are built and more money in invested speak volume of its advance materials and design is not hindered by swept wing and carrier operations.
in other word. do you think that peice of **** wing F-18E/F got which last thing it optimized for is cruise, has any advantage over F-14D.
F-18E use composite extensively that allow it to carry heavy loads on in weopon station. Infact Internal fuel capacity of F-18E is more than F-14. combined that with light weight fuel efficient engines. there is no way F-14 can have greater range than F-18 when both are using ET.
JSRThere is various load out configuratuon of F-15.
It cannot carry 4 2000lbs and 2 ET at same time. and you added 2 Phoenix to F-14. Phoenix by itself is 500kg missile. this for aircraft that is 25% overweight compared to F-15.
http://f-15e.info/joomla/en/weapons/loadout-configurations
I would think difference between F-14D with its obsolete construction and F-18 in Strike role will be minimum.
JSRIf however, an F/A-18 E/F refuels in the same spot, it will barely make it to Kabul. The unrefueled radius of an F-14D carrying normal strike load (4 2,000lb LGBs, 2 Phoenix missiles and two Sidewinders plus 675 rounds of 20mm and two 280 gallon external tanks) is at least 500 statute miles. Accompanying E/F Super Hornets have only a 350 statute mile radius carrying about half the bomb load.”
have u looked what you wrote.
2*280 fuel tanks is not going to give 500NM radius when you have 12000lb weight hanging.
4 2000lb+ air to air missile only Flanker or F-15 can carry in Normal long runway. and these fightrers have alot better TWR.
JSRReally? The figures say otherwise:
F-14D
Max takeoff weight: 74,350 lb (33,720 kg)
Combat Radius: 500 nmi (575 mi, 926 km)F/A-18E
Max takeoff weight: 66,000 lb (29,937 kg)
Combat Radius: 390 nmi (449 mi, 722 km)To be fair the ferry range is a bit better for the Super Hornet but in combat the F-14D could certainly fly further carrying more.
I still think it was the right choice retiring the F-14 but it was a very handy strike aircraft in her later years. They had LANTIRN pods, could carry the 2000lb MK84 and some had ROVER III capability.
Your data does not provide anything regarding weopon load, fuel tanks.
there is no way F-14 can have 926km radius without ET.
JSRYou only need to look at the U.S. experience with the Super Hornet vis-a-vis the TomCat. An upgraded Tomcat variant would have inevitably had an advantage over the super hornet in radar capabilities, range, payload, speed, etc. Yet this option was not chosen because of financial and political considerations
upraded F-14 vs F-18
Su-33 vs MIG-29K is wrong comparision
MIG-29K suppose to fire RVV-BD as it one of weopons for MIG-35.
there is no reason to belive that upgraded F-14 provided greater range than F-18 on internal fuel and once you ET. performance get degraded. with poor TWR. i dont believe F-14 can lift more than F-18 for stirke weopons.
MIG-29K is agile platform with superior TWR than Su-33 and with TVC it will turn circles around Flanker. It is not the non FBW MIG-29.
JSRThe IAF has fair experience with multiple types including the newer Sukhois, plus they have upgrades & latest data from WW OEms to compare with as well. The point remains that pilots flying the LCA refer to it as most fuel efficient & that the engine – a fairly modern Ge404 F2J3 “sips fuel”, giving it decent range.
LCA is fuel efficient compared to Strike oriented Su-30 & M2K but it does not say much it is viable. both M2K & Su-30 aerodynamics, engines and materials have roots in 1970s.
It can carry 2.5-3T payloads in its MK1 variant itself which is far better than what the IN currently gets from its SHar & is a very useful capability. If it was lighter, it’d carry 1T more. Thats not critical to the IN for their MK1 requirements.
LCA can only pull 8g with Mach 1.6 top speed with low ceiling. with Naval variant these performance figures will be further degraded.
There is no reason to believe it can lift 2.5ton to 3 tons on Naval variant as i havent seen it in IAF version MK-1 with larger fuel tanks.
surely it is better than Sea Harrier but it is waste of carrier resources interms of strike, air defence and manpower. does the wings of NLCA will fold up?
http://www.tejas.gov.in/specifications/leading_particulars_and_performance.html
JSRDude, whatever floats your boat.
FYI, the LCA MK2 (intended to be the definitive Naval variant) has more intenal fuel than MK1 and the MK1 itself is regarded as the most fuel efficient fighter the IAF has ever had. Eitherways the actual makers & users don’t buy into your statements.
LCA most fuel efficient does not speak much as most of IAF inventory is pretty old with engines and airframe design dating back to 1970s.
LCA despite composites is overweight. It cannot carry strike loads to distance. and it is unsuitable for Naval fighter.
JSRThe IN disagrees with you & the Ge414 is quite sufficient for IN needs. Second, the USN & USMC disagree with you when it comes to single engines as is evident from the F-35 program.
There is big difference between F135 and G414.
F35 is really light weight aircraft considering internal volume of fuel and engine size.
NLCA will need all the time ET. You cannot run 8 Ton (Most minimum empty weight of NLCA) aircraft on 2.5ton internal fuel.
JSR1. The IAF UPG deal was bound to happen regardless of the MIG 29K deal. IN & IAF have different interests and different priorities, IN for example supports indigenous projects more.
what is example of supporting indigenous projects. unless you count manpower intensive ship building which cannot be applied to aeroplanes.
2. Many here speculated that having a Naval variant will help the SH win the MRCA that surely is not going to happen, again shows IAF & IN makes independent decisions.
It was speculation. infact it is stupidity of chosing either Rafale or EF.
3. This is exactly why LM has proposed the F 35, EADS the Sea Typhoon & SAAB the Sea Gripen, I think MIG will respond with a MIG 35K (29K with MIG 35 internals).
These are all paper projects at moment as by the time India decides alll those airplanes production lines will be closed. Dont count on F-35 30 year production run.
4. There is no planned Naval PAK FA for the moment, it may take a while to materialize, and I can’t see the navy operating it. It would the F 35C or RafaleM.
For next 30 years the only aircraft flying out of India carriers will be MIG-29K.
NLCA is non starter. LCA is byitself is overweight and single engine is entirely unsuitable for carriers.
India simply cant afford to put Gas in three aircraft carriers and all the related high priced manpower of maintaining and operating it.
growth due to demgraphic dividend is gone. so only growth is inflation and debt.
There is simply neither the money nor technology for Nuclear powered carrier.
JSRMIG-29K is 50% more fuel efficient. so less need to store more fuel. MIG-29K is 50% lighter. So less load on Aircraft carrier.
J-15 is a paper plane. It hasnt landed on Aircraft carrier. It cannot carry strike loads. and you wont see external fuel tanks either.
JSREven if they had wanted to, the Indian’s couldn’t have selected the Su-33 – as the production line had closed after building only 30-ish airframes.
MIG-29K line was also closed or is it easy to convert MIG-29 to Naval fighter.
Wow it’s lucky the Indian air force don’t fly SU-30MKIs isn’t it? What with those canards making the SU-30MKI overweight and all, unlike normal weight aircraft like Mig-29 and F16
MIG-35 is more advanced than MKI which will need serious upgrade to match it.
Start from Single seat cocpkit and displays. and than AESA, newest IRST, uprated engines with 3D TVC. 5 wet stations.
MIG-35 carries as much BVR missiles as MKI.
MKI simply not as agile as FBW MIG-29.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOzp7iL-QHI
JSRSee the above points. The Russians chose Mig-29K on cost and practicality grounds. Why would Russia run two production lines for naval fighters each producing a few tens of planes? Insanity. While they both certainly made the right decision on which to procure, it is a separate issue to which is the better plane, the better plane being the Sukhoi.
MIG-29K is simply better plane. It is not overweight with canards. and with Full Fuel and 8 AAM it will still have better than 1 TWR.
Unless SU-33K is lightened and equip with 117C engines. It is simply no match for MIG-29K.
Sign In
