Return of the MiG-29K

[Wags]

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20091009/156412003.html

[Airway]

I didn't even notice that it was gone, but I'm glad it's back again.

 

Thanks for sharing.

 

Airway

[Vekkinho]

Huh, replacing Su-33?!!

 

Hard to believe considering the range of a Naval Flanker is 2.5 times larger...

[Pilotasso]

Interesting, so the Flankers competitor comes back to bite its butt after all these years. :D

 

The choice is logical to me. A major victory for MIG in years.

[EvilBivol-1]

There is no other choice. There are only a few Su-33s remaining in airworthy condition and they can't extend their service lives much longer. There is no ready replacement from Sukhoi as the Su-27KUB/Su-33UB program has been frozen for a number of years now. Moreover, the MiG-29K/KUB development and testing was finaniced in large part by India and is already being serially produced for them. It is by far the most sensible option from a practical and economic point of view. The tactical question is a different story and that debate will never really be settled.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I would love to see these new MiG-29K's cockpit ...

[EvilBivol-1]

There are a ton of them. For example:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=289486&postcount=13

[Vekkinho]

There is no other choice. There are only a few Su-33s remaining in airworthy condition and they can't extend their service lives much longer. There is no ready replacement from Sukhoi as the Su-27KUB/Su-33UB program has been frozen for a number of years now. Moreover, the MiG-29K/KUB development and testing was finaniced in large part by India and is already being serially produced for them. It is by far the most sensible option from a practical and economic point of view. The tactical question is a different story and that debate will never really be settled.

 

Well, not more than a year ago I saw some articles on Severomorsk NITKA exercise, they got like 10+ Su-33 freshly painted and shining, hard to believe they'd opt for a Fulcrum after all these years but yeah, MiG got deeper into naval aspect than Sukhoi lately since their deal with Indian AF so if there's some 29K snd KUBs sitting bored, pending funds from India they'd get some stick time with Russian Navy 'til it happens.

[Pilotasso]

In many ways the Mig is superior to the flanker, more modern avionics, true multirole, more modern weapons (remains to be seen if the upgraded R-77 will be online any time soon). Etc.

 

The Su-33 is a lame duck IMHO, even considering the range advantage, it alone doesnt justify for the type of carrier involved.

[Alfa]

Re: return of the MiG-29K

 

;) .

[Alfa]

Huh, replacing Su-33?!!

 

Hard to believe considering the range of a Naval Flanker is 2.5 times larger...

 

The max ferry range of an Su-33 with full internal tanks is ~ 3000 km.

 

The max ferry range of a MiG-29K is 2000 km on internal tanks and 3000 km when carrying 3 external tanks.

[Fudd]

Did someone say DCS: Fulcrum D vs Hornet?

 

:D

 

Edit:

 

I dont think I could possibly get tired of that matchup. Just the mere thought of it puts me close to unemployemnet and divorce with 80+ flight hours per week...

Edited October 12, 2009 by Fudd

[Pilotasso]

I think it is more likely that to be the what ED is cooking for LOMAC. ;)

 

It was already half baked but never finished before LOMAC release. my 2 cents :D

[nscode]

Yeah, there's no chance to get the info for DCS standard

[joey45]

Did someone say DCS: Fulcrum D vs Hornet?

 

DCS is not about Vs. It's about accutly moddeld fixed and rotory winged war birds....

[jerom1992]

Q: Russia based the Su-33 upon the Su-27. Why don't they make something Su-35 based?

 

I don't think it would be that hard...

[Boberro]

What for? They have only 1 rusted carrier, which is not at all full carrier. Su-33 couldn't start full loaded (at least they started from last ramp...), Kuznetzov has low Anti-Air arnament. MiG-29K which is exported to India is checked and tested for almost free and is enough for Kuznetzov.

 

Also Su-33 is really huge compared to MiG. More space, lighter ;]

Edited October 16, 2009 by Boberro

[NRG-Vampire]

MiG-29K is BACK :)

 

;) .

 

http://secure.simmarket.com/iris-mig-29k-naval-fulcrum.phtml

 

http://www.flatpyramid.com/3d-3d_models-vehicles-aircraft-alien-mig-29k-fulcrum-p15160.html

 

Should be nice to add into LOMAC/DCS :noexpression:

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Su-33 couldn't start full loaded (at least they started from last ramp...),

With Kuznetsov moving at 15 knots, the Su-33 could take off with full fuel and weapons load (TOW 32 800Kg).

[Boberro]

Below 15 knots it couldn't it seems :). But look at this, it was needed to move Sukhoi on last ramp and whole deck was freezed until it starts, right?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

But look at this, it was needed to move Sukhoi on last ramp and whole deck was freezed until it starts, right?

But it does it without enormously expensive to build and maintain, nuclear powered catapult, right?

 

Can F-15 take off from aircraft carriers?

 

Do you realize what class aircraft we are talking about here? I'll remind you, it is not an FA-18 or MiG-29 class.

 

Below 15 knots it couldn't it seems :).

Not at full fuel and weapons load, which it does not need, because it can refuel, upon take off, if necessary.

[GGTharos]

But it does it without enormously expensive to build and maintain, nuclear powered catapult, right?

 

So? Can the Kuznetzov generate the sortie rate and striking power that the nuclear powered carrier does? No.

Not at all, in fact. It's closer to a (better equipped) marine expeditionary support carrier, not that this was ever its mission - the USN's carriers are all about projection of power. The Kuz has just one mission, protecting its anti-ship fleet.

 

Can F-15 take off from aircraft carriers?

No, it was never designed to. Its naval counterpart was the F-14. ;) But strictly speaking, the F-15 has more TWR than a flanker - so you tell me, do you think it could take off from the much longer deck of a US naval aircraft carrier, nominally loaded? There have been examples of F-18C's taking off without afterburner, too (still a cat-shot, of course).

Can a Su-27 take off from a carrier? ;)

 

Do you realize what class aircraft we are talking about here? I'll remind you, it is not an FA-18 or MiG-29 class.

 

Not at full fuel and weapons load, which it does not need, because it can refuel, upon take off, if necessary.

Do you realize that an F-18E will eat a Su-33 for breakfast? The 29K has better chances - but okay, let's go with more contemporary things, before the 18E.

 

We have F-14Bs and D's, which will outrange the Su-33. We have F-18C's, which although inferior in some respects (range, speed, endurance, smaller radar) were equipped with an adequate SPJ and there could be MORE of them in the air than Su-33s. They didn't need to do the A2G/ASuW role either, they could leave this to the A-6's, so overall the Su-33 was well out-numbered.

 

So I'm not sure what sort of argument you're making here, but the MiG-29K sure beats the Su-33 for the Kuz.

 

It's better fit: It's smaller, so you can put in more of them.

It's more modern, and possibly more maintenance friendly and safer to operate from the Kuz. It is equipped to handle more modern threats.

It is capable of carrying out precision strikes, giving the Kuz some limited capability to do a power projection mission.

 

The MiG-29K brings all these things to the table that the Su-33 could not.

 

What do you lose by comparison? Buddy tanking, maybe? Certainly nothing else, except maybe a few pylons on longer ranged or longer-lasting missions - but then, you have more planes to spare so you can make that up by adding another plane to the mission.

Edited October 16, 2009 by GGTharos

[John Cool]

So I'm not sure what sort of argument you're making here, but the MiG-29K sure beats the Su-33 for the Kuz.

 

It's better fit: It's smaller, so you can put in more of them.

 

In the matter of required space on the carrier deck it's not quite true. Suprisingly, the Su-33 (although a bit bigger) takes up a bit LESS room on deck and in the hangar - than his counterpart MiG-29K.

 

With wings and tailplanes folded, the Su-33 spans circa 7.4m - less than the original MiG-29K (probably 9.41/9.47 also) - about 7.8m - 8.3 with missiles. Moreover, Su-33 has a shortened (folding) tailboom, shorter fins, folding nose probe. All of thiese clever features designed to give it a smaller 'footprint' than the rival MiG-29K.

 

It's worth to mention that Su-27K was selected years before over the MiG-29K cause the Su-27K was a less radical redesign than the MiG. Su-33 also had lower minimum control speed.

 

It's also true that we cannot really compare the ageing Su-27K/Su-33 (although slightly overhauled & modernized in KnAAPO in years 2002-2003 with SPO-32 RWR and SIO-1 signal information system added) with the 'new' MiG-29K/KUB, which is "generation" ahead. But imagine if the Su-33 someday were to be given similar upgrade like Su-27SM...

Edited October 16, 2009 by John Cool

[topol-m]

^^^ Oh boy, Battle of the Beasts round 177 :gun_rifle: :inv:

:director: In the blue corner Tharos has the upper-hand but will he be able to hold the fort...

In the red corner Hajduk Veljko is readying himself for countercharge...

[GGTharos]

Interesting - I forgot how deep they fold the wings on the 33. :D

 

As for the Su-33 receiving an upgrade ... it was going to, and it was canceled. The 33 is going out of service soon, probably. I can imagine all I want, but it's rather likely that no such event will occur.