Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: artik on December 31, 2014, 07:25:18 AM
-
I nice set of images of the Indian MiG-29K operating from INS Vikramaditya
http://defence.pk/threads/this-is-ins-vikramaditya-exclusive.320455/
You can see a deck "crowded" by multiple MiGs.
Also I posted before a very nice video of INS Vikramaditya trials with some spectacular shots: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,358644.0.html
But these are different because you actually see how the operational deck works with the "renewed" STOBAR carrier and not a single jet performing trials.
Edit
You can also see an image with some deck color paintings that hadn't existed on the original ship during the trials:
(http://i.imgur.com/epkXzLG.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/ZdE8zNj.png)
-
Rats, mass rapes, selective abortions, famine and nuclear weapons. Only in India (insert that travel advert jingle here).
-
Great link! It's interesting to see how other Navies do it. Those two-seat MiGs are BUTT UGLY lol, which is funny because I like the two-seat Hornets much more than the single seat.
-
What does there Airwing consist of MiG-29s and? I'm sorry, I can't identify that Helicopter in the link.
Do they have any fixed wing ASW or Strike heavier than the Fulcrum? Seems like a nice juicy target for a Pakistani SSK.
-
What does there Airwing consist of MiG-29s and? I'm sorry, I can't identify that Helicopter in the link.
Do they have any fixed wing ASW or Strike heavier than the Fulcrum? Seems like a nice juicy target for a Pakistani SSK.
They have Ka-31 as AEW and Ka-28 as ASW
The helicopter on the picture is HAL Chetak (licensed Aérospatiale Alouette III)
Also note that MiG-29K isn't the "old" MiG-29 - it 4++ gen fighter with AESA radar, powerful strike abilities, modern avionics, glass cockpit and some Israeli ECMs... i.e. very-very capable fighter and attacker.
-
Several recent articles on various defense sites have covered an interesting story regarding the Russians playing politics regarding the promised and paid for support for the engines and avionics for the Mig and SU variants they've sold both India and China. I'll find the link and re post it, but basically over 1/2 the forces of both Mig and Sukoi fighters in both these nations are just sitting as Russia has hung them out to dry pretty much regarding spare parts and support.
The Mig 29k and Su27 naval variants (Su33 and so on) are nice little birds, but lack range in a serious way, due to the weights required for taking off from a non CATOBAR carrier deck. Very, very short range. They also lack a deck based AEW/AWACS aircraft as well, further weakening their defensive capabilities.
And yes, of course any carrier is a prime target for a submarine, in fact historically the number one threat to CVs has always been the submarine, from WW2 to present day.
edit - Indian Sukoi fleet grounded due to no Russian support article (1 or 4)
http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/russians-go-slow-sukhoi-fleet-in-trouble
-
The Mig 29k and Su27 naval variants (Su33 and so on) are nice little birds
Su-33 today is quite outdated aircraft and close to its end of service life - that is why it is going to be replaced by MiG-29K in Russian Navy. Indian Su-30MKI is one of the most advanced (if not the most advanced one) planes in Su-27 family - and it shown itself as very-very potent aircraft on various drills including Red-Flag.
but lack range in a serious way, due to the weights required for taking off from a non CATOBAR carrier deck. Very, very short range.
You are wrong there... in the other thread you could see:
MiG-29K trials taking off with external fuel tank and 2 anti-shipping missiles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdI8PWmYEdU#t=228
Buddy refueling system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdI8PWmYEdU#t=269
Now if we take the numbers of the combat radius (all numbers according to Wikipedia)
Harrier II Gr7: 300nmi
F-35B: 469 nmi
F-35C: 610 nmi
MiG-29K (internal fuel only): 460nmi
MiG-29K (internal fuel + 3 drop tanks): 700nmi
MiG-29K (with 1 drop tanks from calculations above) at least 540nmi.
Also I don't know if it is capable to takeoff with 3 DT from carrier - but it carries 1 DT on many videos so it by no means has very-very short range.
So even if the numbers may vary due to various payloads - its range isn't poor at all.
They also lack a deck based AEW/AWACS aircraft as well, further weakening their defensive capabilities.
And AEW - there is one - Ka-31 helicopters - similar system to what all the Nato STOVL carriers use.
Also quoting Wikipedia:
In 2009, Northrop Grumman offered the advanced E-2D Hawkeye to the Indian Navy.
From what I recall. E-2D was tested and is capable of operating from skijump but Indian Navy refused do to very high price tag of such an aircraft.
-
All of those numbers are from a land based strip.
The Mig29k has 38 percent more internal fuel than its predecessor, but is also heavier. Sure they have videos of taking off from their ski jumps with a centerline tank and 2 missiles, but that is most likely with downloaded fuel loadouts internally - just google it, or look through the various defense sites, but those wiki range quotes are ridiculous for a Mig29k on that short take off jump roll. The Chinese SU fighters certainly aren't nearing the end of any service life, and their thrust/weight ratio is similar to the Mig29ks, and the Chinese don't even try and hide the fact that they have extremely short range.
http://thediplomat.com/2011/07/the-limits-of-chinas-fighter/ - "The Russians decided to replace the Su-33 with a version of the much smaller MiG-29 after realizing that the MiG had similar performance, but Kuznetsov could carry many more of them. "
Your figures of internal fuel only for a Mig29k launching from a ski jump carrier are greater than what a Super Hornet's range with a useful combat load is with external tanks by 15%. Do you think that is possible in any way with no catapult launch? Using buddy refueling is one thing, but that'll eat up half the force, which is very small on these small CVs to mount any kind of missions with any range at all.
I don't doubt the capability of the Mig29k, the Mig29 has long been my favorite fighter, ever since a CF18 pilot that went to our church when he was stationed at our training base my family was at for 4 years back in the 80s was the very first western pilot to fly the Mig29 at Abbotsford International Air Show back in 1989. It's always had poor range compared to western fighters, and even upgraded versions can only mitigate that somewhat, then flying it from a non CATOBAR carrier - come on.
-
The Mig29k has 38 percent more internal fuel than its predecessor, but is also heavier. Sure they have videos of taking off from their ski jumps with a centerline tank and 2 missiles, but that is most likely with downloaded fuel loadouts internally - just google it, or look through the various defense sites, but those wiki range quotes are ridiculous for a Mig29k on that short take off jump roll.
1st of all MiG-29K isn't the MiG-29 of 80th-90th - the fuel payload was increased as you mentioned, engines improved...
Also I don't see any reason to carry central line tank if you can carry fuel internally.
I assume that there are some "manipulations" as always done (like F-35A's range that has "better range" than F-16) also
F-18 combat radius I found were with bombs etc.
See... I clearly agree that it has no F-16's range with 3xDT+2xCFT... but its range isn't poor.
If MiG-29K can takeoff from skijump with full internal fuel and center line tank and can carry some useful weapons - it would have good range.
According to the videos it is a normal practice.
But I still think that its range way better than any STOVL aircraft like Harrier or F-35B - because it is just a conventional aircraft with very minimal overhead over shore based one (for example STOBAR aircraft shouldn't withstand the forces of catapult that BTW much stronger than that of arresting hook).
I think many western defense analytic clearly underestimate the capability of STOBAR or don't understand how it works...
Once plane takes off from skijump it has vertical speed and continues to accelerate horizontally decelerating vertically "falling" it significantly extends the length of the "runway" such that efficiently it works very well. Also it starts to accelerate when the engines work at 100% and only than the barrier released not wasting time on "partial thrust" acceleration.
Let's do some calculations to explain that ski-jump actually works exceptionally well...
Loaded MiG-29K weights 18,550kg (internal fuel).
Maximal takeoff weight is 24,500kg
Thrust is 2x9,000 kgf... giving 0.73 thrust to weight ratio at full load.
Vikramaditya has 180m runway length giving:
Initial takeoff run of ~7s and inital speed ~51m/s = ~100knots
Given takeoff ramp of 14 deg, we get initial vertical speed of 12.3 m/s and horisontal speed of ~95knots relatively to the ship.
Lets assume the ship has 20knots of speed, so wind speed under the wings is around 115knots...
Now takeoff speed of normally loaded MiG-29 is around 280km/h (cound't find better reference) so assuming that at 280km/h ~= 150 knots wings can hold loaded weight than at maximal takeoff weight the required ~ 173 knots... (lift proportional to square of speed)
Now we have plane with 12.3 ms vertical speed with unloaded wings having (115/173)^2 =45% of required lift accelerating...
Small calculations show how the progress go
The table includes: time from takeoff, horizontal speed, the G pilot feels and the distance the plane traveled relatively to the ship...
Time 7.1 s, hspeed=116.1 knots, vspeed= 12.3 m/s G=0.45 flew=180.0 m
Time 7.2 s, hspeed=117.5 knots, vspeed= 11.8 m/s G=0.46 flew=185.0 m
Time 7.3 s, hspeed=118.9 knots, vspeed= 11.2 m/s G=0.47 flew=190.0 m
Time 7.4 s, hspeed=120.3 knots, vspeed= 10.7 m/s G=0.48 flew=195.1 m
Time 7.5 s, hspeed=121.7 knots, vspeed= 10.2 m/s G=0.49 flew=200.3 m
Time 7.6 s, hspeed=123.1 knots, vspeed= 9.7 m/s G=0.50 flew=205.6 m
Time 7.7 s, hspeed=124.5 knots, vspeed= 9.2 m/s G=0.51 flew=210.9 m
Time 7.8 s, hspeed=125.9 knots, vspeed= 8.8 m/s G=0.52 flew=216.3 m
Time 7.9 s, hspeed=127.3 knots, vspeed= 8.3 m/s G=0.54 flew=221.8 m
Time 8.0 s, hspeed=128.7 knots, vspeed= 7.9 m/s G=0.55 flew=227.4 m
Time 8.1 s, hspeed=130.1 knots, vspeed= 7.4 m/s G=0.56 flew=233.0 m
Time 8.2 s, hspeed=131.5 knots, vspeed= 7.0 m/s G=0.57 flew=238.7 m
Time 8.3 s, hspeed=132.9 knots, vspeed= 6.6 m/s G=0.58 flew=244.5 m
Time 8.4 s, hspeed=134.3 knots, vspeed= 6.2 m/s G=0.60 flew=250.3 m
Time 8.5 s, hspeed=135.7 knots, vspeed= 5.8 m/s G=0.61 flew=256.2 m
Time 8.6 s, hspeed=137.1 knots, vspeed= 5.4 m/s G=0.62 flew=262.2 m
Time 8.7 s, hspeed=138.5 knots, vspeed= 5.1 m/s G=0.63 flew=268.3 m
Time 8.8 s, hspeed=139.9 knots, vspeed= 4.7 m/s G=0.65 flew=274.4 m
Time 8.9 s, hspeed=141.3 knots, vspeed= 4.4 m/s G=0.66 flew=280.6 m
Time 9.0 s, hspeed=142.7 knots, vspeed= 4.0 m/s G=0.67 flew=286.9 m
Time 9.1 s, hspeed=144.1 knots, vspeed= 3.7 m/s G=0.69 flew=293.2 m
Time 9.2 s, hspeed=145.5 knots, vspeed= 3.4 m/s G=0.70 flew=299.6 m
Time 9.3 s, hspeed=146.9 knots, vspeed= 3.1 m/s G=0.71 flew=306.1 m
Time 9.4 s, hspeed=148.3 knots, vspeed= 2.9 m/s G=0.73 flew=312.7 m
Time 9.5 s, hspeed=149.7 knots, vspeed= 2.6 m/s G=0.74 flew=319.3 m
Time 9.6 s, hspeed=151.1 knots, vspeed= 2.4 m/s G=0.76 flew=326.0 m
Time 9.7 s, hspeed=152.5 knots, vspeed= 2.1 m/s G=0.77 flew=332.8 m
Time 9.8 s, hspeed=153.9 knots, vspeed= 1.9 m/s G=0.78 flew=339.6 m
Time 9.9 s, hspeed=155.3 knots, vspeed= 1.7 m/s G=0.80 flew=346.6 m
Time 10.0 s, hspeed=156.8 knots, vspeed= 1.5 m/s G=0.81 flew=353.5 m
Time 10.1 s, hspeed=158.2 knots, vspeed= 1.3 m/s G=0.83 flew=360.6 m
Time 10.2 s, hspeed=159.6 knots, vspeed= 1.2 m/s G=0.84 flew=367.8 m
Time 10.3 s, hspeed=161.0 knots, vspeed= 1.0 m/s G=0.86 flew=375.0 m
Time 10.4 s, hspeed=162.4 knots, vspeed= 0.9 m/s G=0.87 flew=382.2 m
Time 10.5 s, hspeed=163.8 knots, vspeed= 0.8 m/s G=0.89 flew=389.6 m
Time 10.6 s, hspeed=165.2 knots, vspeed= 0.7 m/s G=0.90 flew=397.0 m
Time 10.7 s, hspeed=166.6 knots, vspeed= 0.6 m/s G=0.92 flew=404.5 m
Time 10.8 s, hspeed=168.0 knots, vspeed= 0.5 m/s G=0.93 flew=412.1 m
Time 10.9 s, hspeed=169.4 knots, vspeed= 0.4 m/s G=0.95 flew=419.7 m
Time 11.0 s, hspeed=170.8 knots, vspeed= 0.4 m/s G=0.96 flew=427.4 m
Time 11.1 s, hspeed=172.2 knots, vspeed= 0.4 m/s G=0.98 flew=435.2 m
Time 11.2 s, hspeed=173.9 knots, vspeed= 0.4 m/s G=1.00 flew=445.0 m
Edit: improved calculation resolution.
You can see that once the plane reaches required speed it had flown around 450m and still has some vertical speed to spare at Maximal takeoff weight.
Now the takeoff speed I took is for ordinary MiG-29, MiG-29K has lower stall speed and probably has better numbers.
So I hope now it is more clear how ski-jump works - the "actual" runway becomes much longer than it looks like but when you look at the numbers... they are pretty good ones.
-
If MiG-29K can takeoff from skijump with full internal fuel and center line tank and can carry some useful weapons - it would have good range.
According to the videos it is a normal practice.
Just a thought. Just because you can SEE the tanks, doesn't mean we know anything about the fuel load. Perhaps they have a land-based tanker nearby, or they're planning on doing some buddy refueling. Roll with light internal and an empty tank, meet the tanker after takeoff, and THEN load the internal and external tanks? Just a thought.
-
Just a thought. Just because you can SEE the tanks, doesn't mean we know anything about the fuel load. Perhaps they have a land-based tanker nearby, or they're planning on doing some buddy refueling. Roll with light internal and an empty tank, meet the tanker after takeoff, and THEN load the internal and external tanks? Just a thought.
Or instead of assuming some "conspiracy" just take a look on the numbers, physics and aerodynamics (as I shown above) and deduce that ski-jump actually allows decent range and payload...
It seems counter-intuitive, but if you actually look at the "virtual" runway length that is achieved via "jump" you'll see that it is quite large (450m!)
BTW I'll explain the calculations...
the horizontal speed is based on pure acceleration... vertical speed depends on the current speed as lift increases as aircraft becomes faster. So calculating the changes in V and H speed you can actually calculate how the jump happens and works.
Take a look on V-speed, G and horizontal speed values...
-
Just a thought. Just because you can SEE the tanks, doesn't mean we know anything about the fuel load. Perhaps they have a land-based tanker nearby, or they're planning on doing some buddy refueling. Roll with light internal and an empty tank, meet the tanker after takeoff, and THEN load the internal and external tanks? Just a thought.
From what I understand in a quick Google search, the 29K has the ability to Buddy Refuel other aircraft. Not sure if it's a mod or something that can changed in and out fairly quickly.
How big is the Indian Carrier Air Wing? I didn't read that anywhere. A handful of Buddy aircraft per carrier might probably keep the entire air wing cyclic at least in the CAP role. Now, launching major "alpha" type strikes might be more difficult if trying to launch several heavily armed (No External Fuel) MiG29s at least enough to attack a heavily defended strategic target a considerable distance away.
-
Or instead of assuming some "conspiracy"
It's not a "conspiracy", it's a very valid situation. I know the C5s do it when fully loaded.
-
Nef, they are going to have 16 Mig29k on board, they can fit more, but that is what they've got with this current deployment according to most defense sites. 4 will be dual seat versions.
I just don't see it, and neither do most western defense sites - as I said, a fully loaded SuperHornet with any kind of combat load at all as well with external tanks has a max radius range of 400 miles without any tanking - how precisely will a Mig29k with only 17% more thrust from the new engines, a lot more max weight than previous versions, ever be able to take off from a 120m takeoff roll to a ski jump, compared to a catapult system that can fling a SuperHornet off the deck at 160 knots or more.
And yes, the Mig29k does have a buddy refueling system, and it's for a real good reason - without sending up half that force of 16 Mig29k as tankers, the rest aren't going far. Certainly not 450 nm with 2 large anti ship missiles and external fuel tanks. Come on. They are certainly more capable in terms of range and everything else than the Harriers they have replaced, but the numbers Artik is giving say that the Mig29k will out range a SuperHornet from a Catobar launch/retrieve system that has a longer launch length than the Mig29k has a roll from brake release. How can that make any sense whatsoever? Even the Russians have said that the switched from the SU33 types to the Mig29k due to size, as they can fit more aboard, as they have a very similar range and performance envelope now. And the Su33 could launch only with downloaded fuel and 4 AAMs at a max to have any sort of minimal range at all.
-
All I remember from my intelligence days is the Mig 29 cannot fire is canon with a CDT. Did they 'fix' that?
-
Nef, they are going to have 16 Mig29k on board, they can fit more, but that is what they've got with this current deployment according to most defense sites. 4 will be dual seat versions.
According to the images it looks like they can park at least 11 MiG-29K (7 behind the superstructure and 4 before) the way they do not interfere with takeoffs and landing.
So they probably can take at least 12 mig strike package without moving plane to/from hangar...
Also unlike MiG-29A the MiG-29K dual seat version is very similar to a single seat one - the singe seat one has an additional fuel tank instead of rear seat - the difference in the structure is minimal.
How precisely will a Mig29k with only 17% more thrust from the new engines, a lot more max weight than previous versions, ever be able to take off from a 120m takeoff roll to a ski jump, compared to a catapult system that can fling a SuperHornet off the deck at 160 knots or more.
...
but the numbers Artik is giving say that the Mig29k will out range a SuperHornet from a Catobar launch/retrieve system that has a longer launch length than the Mig29k has a roll from brake release.
1st of all I don't try to claim that MiG-29K has better range than Super Bug... when you "show" the numbers everybody cheats... but numbers show that it can takeoff from ski-jump at its full takeoff weight...
How can that make any sense whatsoever?
See - it exactly the point - it isn't 120m roll from brakes...
1. The roll on the carrier's deck is 180m rol
2. brakes would not work - it has special anchoring system
3. The effective runway length is much longer - because thanks to skijump it has positive climb (also only partial lift) allowing the plane to accelerate way beyond the deck gaining required speed and lift. So if the calculations are correct it gets about total of 450m of run...
Even the Russians have said that the switched from the SU33 types to the Mig29k due to size, as they can fit more aboard, as they have a very similar range and performance envelope now. And the Su33 could launch only with downloaded fuel and 4 AAMs at a max to have any sort of minimal range at all.
The reason that Su-33 was selected in 90th - is due to its lower speed - it could operate safer during landing + some internal politics of guys of Suchoi being closer to the decision makers (at least according to guys form MiG design bureau)
The reason that MiG-29K was selected now is because MiG-29K is much more up-to date aircraft with both air to air and air to ground capabilities and was already designed for Indian Navy... so why to spend money on aircraft design when they have one already.
-
Another picture I had found:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4wbIx_YneR4/Up8Whp7-bvI/AAAAAAAAVac/rnWOgaPnGps/s1600/_MVV6177-700501.jpg)
Source: http://www.livefistdefence.com/2013/12/enjoy-these-brilliant-pictures-on.html
Note: 3 DT, 2 Kh-35 missiles and 2 A2A missiles... nice load for STOBAR takeoff...
-
Brilliant looking thing that 29K.
-
Still my favorite fighter, like I said, I've loved the Mig29 since seeing it at the Abby int air show, where a team of Migs performed for the first time outside of the USSR back in the late 80s, and a Canadian CF18 pilot was allowed to fly the 2 seater even. The turn rate was better than any other 2 engined fighter that I had ever seen (at ground alt anyway), and even arguably right up there with the F16/F18 on the deck, possibly better.
IF that Mig29k can in fact take off from a non CATOBAR carrier with that loadout, it absolutely is a huge improvement over previous USSR designs for blue water work - the SU33 could carry at best 4 light A2A missiles, usually 2 Aphids and 2 Archers, as 4 Archers they had to download some fuel, on top of the already downloaded fuel load - the Su33 had horrifyingly bad range, the Mig29k, whatever its range may now be, is certainly a huge improvement.
-
If it can't carry a proper war load then the Russians would have fitted rocket boosters like they've done in the past, and still do with their reserve MiG-21s.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/mig-21de_ddr_6.jpg)
Gman I'm a bit baffled by your comment on the Su-33's range. The Su-33 was developed from the Su-27 which was designed to loiter over the North Pole waiting for USAF bombers using nothing but its massive internal fuel storage. It carries about as much fuel internally as an F-15E with the conformal fuel tanks. That's why it's so big, it's a flying gas tank. The Su-33 has a reported range almost double that of the Mig-29K, though the Mig can close this gap by sacrificing stores for external fuel. Like that 29K in Artik's picture above.