uss noviceSince it seems, as far as Ive read, most Flankers and variants dont use external fuel tanks since they have a massive internal fuel capability, are they able to be fully fueled while carring, for instance, 3 Brahmos ASMs?
Just wondering coming from the idea of the aircrafts range aspect….
Would, or is it doctrine to take off with a light fuel load and full weapons load and then refuel to “overload” the aircraft once its in the air?
Don’t quote me on this, but an a/c like the Su-30MKI has a MTOW of about 35000kg. It is 17500 kg empty and can carry over 9000kgs of fuel. So, simplistically, it ought to be able to take off with a payload of ~ 8000kg even if it has 9000kg in fuel. 17500+8000+9000 = 34500kg.
theoretically, 8000kg in payload could include 3 brahmos ASM (~2000kgs each) = 6000kg + 2XR77 (350kg) + 2XR73 (210kg) = 6600kg payload.
Of course, this is assuming that it can carry those 3 Brahmos missiles without severely handicapping flight performance. More realistically, I could see an MKI type manage 3 Klub (3900kg)+ 2 Kh 31 (1200kg) + 2X R77+ 2XR73 = about 5500kg payload with decent fuel load.
JMT. Resident experts like Pit, Garry and Ken could probly give a more realistic picture.
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceTo attack a CVBG, you first have to find it in a big blue ocean. There is a reason why USN policy is to have the CVBG stand off from the coast by at least 300 miles: thousands and thousands of square miles to search. Distance is your friend when you have to defend a CVBG and there is no terrain masking over the ocean.
Yes, that is definitely an advantage. At the same time, if the russkies can field MPAs and such in large numbers, they could be spotted and then the advantage could be lost. But still, it’ll be one hell of a task.
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceYou’re aware that before they had to worry about ESSM, RAM, & Phalanx, they’d have to get by Hornets/SH with AIM-120s directed by Hawkeyes, and three to six Aegis ships right? Why do you think during the Cold War the USSR was planning on using regiments of Backfires in conjunction with Oscars? Because you’d need a hell of a lot more than 20.
i’m aware of the protection provided by the AWACs and Shornets ( i thought it ought to be clear from my previous post), however, would the protection be adequate if faced by escorting advanced flankers with R77s and perhaps even LRAAMs like KS-172? apart from the ships, the AWacs itself is a pretty juicy target. Not to mention the escort ships. All in all, the CVBG offers a nice bunch of juicy targets all in one, the carrier being the main. As far as 20 missiles goes, i was just throwing out a random number for the sake of simplicity, a number of Backfires/Su-34s in conjunction with an Oscar or two would throw a lot more.
Tactically, imho the advantage lies with the attackers and this puts the CVBG on a bit of a backfoot. The flankers/backfires/oscars can wait for the right spot trying to capitalize on the surprise element, and if things don’t go as planned, always disengage (considering the huge endurance they have).
An article was posted in this forum earlier today about the Su-34, 58 by 2015…….Not that scary. 300km is not that impressive, it puts the launch aircraft well within range of the defensive carrier aircraft, Hawkeye and Shornet which were aimed at Backfires carrying 400km+ missiles. Not to mention the Standards of the escorting DDG’s.
Aah, this is what I was trying to get at – so what kind of a radius of cover does the Shornet/Hawkeye provide? 300 plus bubble around the CVBG would be useful. Also, how many hawkeyes per group providing round-the-clock coverage?
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceGetting past the essm vs sizzler debate, to deal with the original question (chances of backfires, oscars vs USN CBG), you’d also need to consider the Su-34. A more stealthy platform albeit with lower payload capacity.
The thing is, long ranged AShMs (300km+) automatically put the carriers on the defensive. Irrespective of whether an ESSM type can defend succesfully or not. Let us say for speculation sake, that the ESSM has 80% success rate against something like an Onyx/Sizzler or Moskit. But a saturation attack from multiple directions would mean that chances of survival diminish considerably. Out of 20 total missiles, 4 might get through and mission kill (if not cripple) a capital asset. Ideally, you’d want to be able to totally prevent any such launch. no flanker/backfire ought to be able to reach close to launch range. How effective/large is the safety bubble created by the Super Hornet/Hawkeye combo? will it be able to tackle a bunch of backfires/Su-34s covered by Su-27s or worse, Pakfas? 😮 Ditto with the AsuW assets on the CVBG?
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceour neighbour to the east. it currently has A-5s, J-6s, J-7s, J-8s, Su-27s, Su-30MK2s, JH-7s, J-10s and is probably developing a J-XX for the 5th gen fighter requirement.
even with A-5s, J-6s, J-7s and J-8s gone, it’ll still have J-11s, Su-30MKKs and MK2s, JH-7s, J-10s, FC-1 (maybe?) and 5th gen J-XXs.
How about the russians? For the next 2 decades or so, they’ll probly have
MiG 31s, MiG 29s, Su-34s, Su-27s, Pakfas in their inventory and thats not including the strategic bomber fleet!
Not that I agree with this MRCA purchase circus. The $ 10.2 billion could easily be invested elsewhere while easily managing to keep up IAF capability and numbers. They could just buy 20 odd M2k-5s, buy additional 20-40 MiG 29SMT, upgrade existing M2ks, get 150 LCAs and invest in MCA, JVs on Ks-172, R77Ms and perhaps even push a fleetwide datalink & towed decoy program for that kind of $$$$s. What a bloody:mad: waste!
Anyways, IMHO all the MRCA platforms would be a little outclassed by 2025-30 by 5th gen types. I’d rather see the IAF slog on till 2025 with upgraded M2k-5s and MiG 29SMTs (which probly can be inducted within 2-3 years from now) and start inducting the MCA simultaneously.
That way by 2030, you’d have: Pakfa, MCA, Su-30MKI, LCA.
Regards,
USS.
Regards,
USS.
uss novice1) The carrier is old & despite little time at sea has had a hard life (two fires, of which one was major, unmaintained for years leading to serious corrosion) & will not last as long as a new ship, even after refurbishment.
As per some reports, out of some 2500 pieces that make up the Gorky’s superstructure, as many as 950 are being entirely replaced in the refit, about 750 have been overhauled, only about 850 remain from the original. Not bad at all. I’ll be damned if it doesnt last long enough. If the IN can make 30-40 year old Carriers last for another 20, i don’t see why the Gorky won’t last.
2) The final price without aircraft looks like being as much as Cavour, which although smaller (70% the size) is more capable, ton for ton, much cheaper & easier to maintain, will last much longer, & has significant commonality in design & systems with the IAC. An enlarged Cavour (i.e. IAC 😀 ) would appear to be superior in every way except initial purchase price.
I think the final price is yet to be determined. The Russkies are asking for $ 600 million more as per newspaper sources (which can’t truly be trusted). Even if they charge that amount, it’ll still be worth it. $ 2 billion for the entire overhaul of the ship + 16 MiG 29ks is still very, very good. Much better than what India would’ve paid for a carrier larger than the Cavour by 30%. Remember, the cavour is over 2 billion $s without the a/c, then you add the extra size, then you add the concept of STOBAR, skijumps, arrestors and all and the price would easily cross the $ 3 billion mark. Then you add a/c such as Rafales for another $ 2.5 – 3 billion. You are looking close to 5-6 billion USD mate! It’ll take a long time of service for the Gorky to chalk up that kinda dinero in expenses. In terms of maintenance, the IN fulcrums have a lot in common with IAF fulcrums, which means commonality in logistics/maintenance/parts. Getting a few Rafales would just complicate matters relating to greater costs for setting up the infrastructure. As far the Cavour being more capable ton for ton, thats highly debatable. For one, you are looking at a ship that can carry only about 8-12 a/c vs one that can carry about 30. Its more of an LPH type than a true carrier
I am now convinced that buying an IAC-style ship from, e.g., Fincantieri, followed by domestic building of the same design, would have been a better option.
Yes, this would’ve been one decent advantage of going with a single carrier design.
What’s the value of a strategic relationship with someone who is completely untrustworthy? Someone who breaks contract after contract? What sort of relationship is that? Sounds utterly worthless to me.
Thats a harsh way of looking at a partner that for years backed you up. We don’t see Akulas and Backfires and rocket engines and deep TOT on radars being offered by other countries do we? That itself makes the relationship special. Out of many billlions that India has invested with russia in defence deals over the years, you have about 15% worth of purchases being delayed and snafued. Not too bad in the overall scheme of things. The last 15-20 years or so have been extremely turbulent for Russia and India, things are changing rapidly and such bumps are bound to come up every now and then. Surely not worth discarding the whole relationship as “utterly worthless”. Thank goodness the GOI doesn’t share the same ideas when it comes to foreign relations!
Regards,
USS.
uss novicePlus $1.5 billion for aircraft & a refit
I’m with UAZ on this one. $ 1.5 billion for a fully refurbed carrier and 16 MiG 29ks+spares+support is an excellent deal, period. Even $ 2 billion is great. On any of these super duper teeny weeny euro carriers, the a/c complement alone would’ve cost India more than the entire Gorky deal. Yup its a good deal even if about 3 years late. Not too bad at all.
Get real: India has choices about who to buy from. Notice how many offers India has for the MRCA deal? An unreliable & dishonest supplier is not going to be first in the queue for future contracts. After all, if they lie & cheat on weapons sales, how reliable are they going to be when it really counts?
From past experience mate, a lot better than some of the others! Again, UAZ has a good point, this ain’t some retail business we’re dealing with. the relationship with russia is extremely important to India strategically, and I doubt a few delays here and there are really going to change things irrespective of the whining in the media and some other circles.
REgards,
USS.
uss novicethey had done, the K/KUB is capable of carrying air-to-ship missile/bomb armament underbelly. Why you think the 35 will be different?
I was referring to something like the Typhoon or Shornet being able to carry multiple AAMs underbelly apart from just the centerline EFT/AshM. THe reason I mention this is cause in my mind (FWIW and I could be wrong), that would reduce wingloading.
originally posted by Sumeet @ BR forums:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y113/airforcefan1/Special%20Report/EF10.jpg
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceMaybe, but they are still a long way from being the same aircraft.
Overall, I’d agree esp. in case of the sensors involved. The differences are plenty -ZhukA, OLS-UEM, ELT-568, SOLO/SOAR etc. But airframewise, the similarity is considerable other than the fact that the “K” has landing gear and slightly longer wingspan (6 inches or so IIRC).
BTW, is it just me or does the model show a smaller nose on the a/c than in reality? The loadout though is intereesting, esp. considering it is the fulcrum afterall. It’d have been cooler though if they’d hook up a 2500 liter centerline tank to go with it. Wish they had done something to include underbelly/carriage weapons instead of just hooking everything on the wings.
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceNice, looks like we have yet another Russian first flight to look forward to!
Actually, in some ways it already happened last january when in the form of the IN MiG-29k’s flight, the similarity is quite evident.
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceBTW, can any one tell what that Red Nosed missile is that its carrying on the inner pylon?
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceI don’t know, does the MiG-35 look so much different from current layout? Could not find any terribly big differences, could be wrong, though.
It seems the wing-span as well as length of the bird have increased. plus the wing area. At the same time they have incorporated composites and ripped out the older gizmos with lighter, newer electronics. kind of hard to say really. Of course the original rD-33.3 (8.5 tons) has been replaced by the RD-33.mk (9 tons). I’m guessing that the wingloading has decreased too thanks to the increase in wing area. my question though pertains more to weight. while sens points out the Migavia website and states an increase in MTOW/NTOW, it may simply be because of the increase in fuel capacity. Can anybody give us the definitive empty weight of this bird? and its internal fuel capacity?
regards,
USS.
uss novicewell at least it answers the question about the 2 extra hardpoints, just as discussed they found space close to the wingtips. Nice.
Well the question is, with this increase in wing area and assuming an increase in weight (as proposed by Sens), what happens to the TWR? They proposing bigger engines as well?
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceSo has anyone figured out where the 2 additional hardpoints will go? Do remember that the MiG-35’s wing will be broader than what we see in the pictures. The wing surface area has increased by 4 sq. meters. So, perhaps they can make space for a couple of R-73 types behind one of the innermost wing pylons?
Another question:
Does anyone know the empty weight of the MiG-35. The original A version was around some 10900kgs IIRC, the newer airframe has more composites and lighter electronics perhaps, does this reduce its weight, if at all? All I know is that its 800kgs lighter as per P.Butowski in Flug Revue (4/2006)
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceHere is an interesting article about the “Morroco-deal”.
Laird said, “The absence of export sales presents stark choices.” France can radically cut the 294-aircraft program, maintain or increase the numbers, or take the capability and create a “global aircraft,” by partnering with someone else.
They have a strong chance with India, but they need to market more aggressively and be ready to share some technology. A $ 10+ billion upfront deal would go a long way for the French, esp. with an option to buy an additional 80. Whatsmore, the IAF seems to love its french toys. Ever since the Indian Def Min last visited France, there has been a distinct thaw in ties between the two countries. France can capitalize on the fall out of the India-US nuclear deal and push hard for the Rafale.
One option might be to take the Mirage 2000-9 sold to the United Arab Emirates and develop that into an export product, in cooperation with Lockheed Martin.
I’d love to see a big ass GE-F110 powering a M2k-9. Hookup an internal IRST and you have one kickass bird.
Regards,
USS.
Sign In
