By: Anonymous
- 23rd December 2001 at 03:03Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: The Indian perspective.
"The Su-33 is very much a superior naval fighter to the Mig-29K on range and avionics alone. "
Sorry Jonesy but that is just not true. The Su-33 is a fighter only. It can only use AAMs and unguided bombs and rockets. Even the First Mig-29K (without the SMT upgrades) had laser and TV guided air to ground/sea weapons ground mapping radar etc etc.
Regarding your earlier comments about the -29s lack of taking off with a large warload... exactly why are you confusing it with a B-52?
During any bombing mission it will most likely be carrying 2 x 1,000-1,500kg LGB or TV guided bomb, three fuel tanks and maybe 2 AA-12s and 2 AA-11s. Jamming equipment all being internal. Aircraft flying with it will probably have ARMs as well as AAMs for support.
Mig-29K has takeoff run of less than 240m with weapon load without skijump and without "Blocks" holding it while it runs its engines up to full power.
"You can quote all the stats you want but until we see them actually operating on the carrier, its all speculation. Thats not just my idea, its the reality. In a few years, it will be very interesting to revisit this debate. We will actualy have operational records to look at and results. "
Very impressive Sauron. You say we can't really tell which will be the better aircraft till we see them perform. This is after Harry mentions what sort of capability the -29 has. Before you even knew anything about the -29K that was part of this discussion you said:
" ....but no matter how many letters they add on to the Mig-29, in this role, it will never be in the same class as the others."
Should you perhaps practise what you preach? BTW the extra letters represent upgrades in fuel capacity and range of targets that can be engaged as well as other avionics and hardware upgrades and have a rather significant effect on aircraft performance.
Anyway... enough grizzles.
I think the Rafale would come first for the French, the Mig for the Indians and the F-18 for the US.
I think without strings and with any sized carrier you wanted I'd give Rafale first, Mig-29 second and F-18 third place.
My reasons. Well the Rafale for looking cool, having good avionics and being better than previous French planes in that role and therefore an improvement.
The Mig-29 because it is very manouverable has good weapons and can be used on smaller carriers if necessary.
The F-18 comes last because someone Fkd up. It has less capability than both of the aircraft it replaced, it has all the latest gadgets and is insulated by being part of a war machine that is powerful enough to absorb its weaknesses, but it really is a second class weapon. }>
By: Jonesy
- 23rd December 2001 at 04:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE:
Garry,
Sorry I wasnt clearer. The information on Su-33 is accurate as far as I know. The MiG-29K initially (and the model I am referring to) was a modified M airframe and was capable of operating the standard AAM's in addition to Kh-31 AShM and Kh-31P ARMs (the latter requiring installation of the Pastel ESM system to provide direction). The Korabelnyy modifications reducing the internal fuel carriage to 5,670 litres or 1,498 US gallons.
Wheras the standard Su-33 was cleared for both Kh-31 models and, allegedly, the Kh-41 AShM. With the Rossikaya Avionika (sp.) upgrade or Su-27KM (I barely understand Russian designations as it stands) offering compatibility with the Kh-29 laser and TV missiles, the KAB series of PGM's etc. The equivalent model of Fulcrum being the -29SMTK or MiG-29K-2002 with the MIL-1553 databus and equivalent weapons compatability.
As to range, a factor whose importance cannot be overstressed in naval aviation for reasons I've stated ad nauseum, the figures I've seen published show the -33 to have a considerable advantage over the MiG design.
If you have contrary figures or details on anything written above I'd be interested to see them Garry.
Regards,
Steve
New
By: Anonymous
- 23rd December 2001 at 05:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE:
Also at least the French carrier and the U.S. have a serious fixed wing carrier capable AWACs backing them up. A ski-jumper without a good AWACs is just short sighted.
elp
usa
New
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron
- 23rd December 2001 at 06:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: the Mig-29
Garry
You probably know more about the published material on all three jets than I do, but my second post was nothing more than to point out to Harry, the speculative nature of the detail he included about the Mig. There was no preaching as you imply. I think it is only right to occasionaly point out that while it is fun to compare, it's always easy to win the debate when you accept everything listed in the press handout.
I concur with those who also question the wisdom of India trying to develop the Russian carrier particularly in view of the fact that there seems to be no immediate threat in the area. Jonesy said it right when he termed it a "distraction" if they have long range plans similar to those he outlined. As he pointed out, why not put your resourses to work on the real goal. Is there anyone here from India that can give us a factual update on current status of the carrier or the Mig?
A question to Jonesy. Could you give us more about why you believe STOBAR is proven. Should the French have gone STOBAR for example? The USN?
Regards
New
Posts: 343
By: stormrider
- 23rd December 2001 at 06:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: the Mig-29
No way if u have the money!
New
Posts: 839
By: Rosco
- 23rd December 2001 at 09:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The Indian perspective.
Actually the Rafale's structure was designed first for a carrier environment and then lightened in the case of the land based version. Except for the lack of a wing fold the Rafale is probably the best carrier suited of the three.
New
Posts: 35
By: kyle
- 23rd December 2001 at 10:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: the Mig-29
Sorry, to be a kill joy - but this whole Gorshkov thing looks like either a right royal screw up, or a massive exercise in disinformation. I vote for screw up.
-------------
India mulling costs associated with aircraft carrier acquisition
(Defense News, 23 November 2001)
The Indian government said it has not decided whether to acquire the aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov from Russia because of the high cost of modernization. Russian has threatened to sell the carrier for scrap if a deal with India is not signed by year's end, officials said. Defence Minister George Fernandes announced in Parliament the decision has not been made because the government is scrutinizing the detailed project document submitted recently by a team of Indian Navy officers.
An intergovernmental agreement was penned in October 2000 between the two countries that called for the acquisition of the aircraft carrier and its refit and modernization. A senior Indian Navy official said, "The refit and modernization of the Admiral Gorshkov would cost India $1 billion, and we are still not sure if the entire program is viable or not." He said the Russians would give the aging aircraft carrier to India as gesture of friendship. The Indian Navy has informed the Defence Ministry that the service cannot carry out the necessary repair and maintenance because no domestic naval dockyard is equipped to undertake aircraft carrier work, the Navy official added.
-------------------
New
Posts: 343
By: stormrider
- 23rd December 2001 at 11:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The Indian perspective.
so? i said it already ,but thanks for the details.
New
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder
- 23rd December 2001 at 13:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: the
Elp, Dassault has for years manufactured caarier planes(Super Etendard) and maintained the Alize and Crusader. I have absolutely no doubt that the Rafale will handle the ocean environment as well as any other. The Rafale was designed from the beginning as a carrier capable plane. There is a common misconception that the Rafale was designed for land ops and then modified for carrier ops. This is not the case, and indeed it was one of the reasons that Dassault was never going to be able to join Typhoon Inc.-the carrrier requiremnt demanded side intakes.
By: Harry
- 23rd December 2001 at 14:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: the Mig-29
I'm sorry sauron but the only thing speculative about the details I've given is the radar of the Mig-29SMTK which maybe either the Zhuk-M or the Zhuk-27.Please don't assume things so easily and what I've mentioned are but a small amount of it's enhancemnets.Given it's features,the new Mig-29 is indeed an extremely capable and cost effective option which can take on most threats.
It may also be seen in another way if we consider a "potential loss".Assuming the primary targets of the Migs may be pakistani,I don't think it's worth sending in an expensive Rafael especially when the Migs can get the job done quite easily.Of course against China,it would be another matter.
As for warload,the standard suite for the -K itself is 4 AsHMs(2 Kh-31s,2 Kh-35) and 4 AAMs(2x R-73s 2x R-77s or 4x of either) which seems pretty good.India is also very likely to deploy rocket laucher pods on them which would be quite effective.
WRT PLAN carrier deployments,the differences between -K and Su-33 is quite small though the Su-33 does seem a far superior aircraft.I'm sure you know that the Russian Navy's decision to acquire the Su-33 over the Mig-29K(which was widely considered superior) was faced with severe criticism.The Su-33 enjoys greater range,warload and an edge in manouverability but the Mig-29SMTK would enjoy superior avionics and pilots which should balance the situation.What's missing is a canard system which the Mig-29 could definitely use to reduce the superiority in manouverability of the Su-33.
By: Jonesy
- 23rd December 2001 at 14:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: the Mig-29
Sauron,
Stormrider summed it up quite succintly in seven words! STOBAR is great if you dont have access to the resources or technology for CATOBAR operations. STOBAR ops are proven in the sense that the technique is in operation aboard the Russian fleet carrier Kuznetsov.
There are two main issues with STOBAR that arise from the lack of the catapult. Namely that of a lower sortie rate and performance inhibited airframes (i.e fast-jets with lower performance and no fixed wing support aircraft - doff cap to Elp!). The sortie rate problem is through the fact that to launch a heavily loaded aircraft requires the use of a bloody good run. Below is one of the most often seen images of a post-conversion Gorshkov. The aircraft roughly parallel with the aft of the superstructure is, allegedly, on the heavy load spot. You see where it is in relation to the landing-on area?.
Yup, right smack dab in the middle of it. Going by the diagrams I've seen there's a possibility that the JBD's on the short position may foul the landing strip also. So there's no possibility of simultaneous takeoff and landing events which has a very serious effect on sortie rates, also there is a safety aspect as well.
Imagine that MiG on the short spot launches and develops a problem (happens quite frequently to USN aircraft). He can just keep it airborne but needs to swing around for an emergency trap. Before he can do that with the Gorshkov in its pre-strike configuration, as pictured, the plane handlers will have to move both choppers and no less than 4 MiG's to clear the landing drag and, seeings as the deck park is full, that will probably mean striking at least a few airframes below deck. Bad news for Mr Fulcrum pilot if he's trying to get back aboard soonest as all that deck reconfiguration will take about 10 - 15 minutes with a well trained crew. If he cant the carrier just lost 5% or so of its combat airpower because some dumb matelot left his wrench were it could get sucked into an engine (wild example!).
In summary, IMHO, if you want an effective attack carrier you have to look at 40-50,000 tons, 30+ fast jet airgroup and a fixed wing AEW platform. The latter, at today's technology, absolutely dictates a catapult.
By: ink
- 23rd December 2001 at 19:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: the Mig-29
Jonesy,
Your point is very effectively made but surely you must agree that the Indians aren't planning on using their carrier for a Kosovo/Iraq style strike on the Pakistani mainland. I suspect that the MiG-29s will more often be used in an air defense role (which requires significantly less ordenance).
New
By: Anonymous
- 24th December 2001 at 05:02Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: the Mig-29
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 24-12-01 AT 05:10 AM (GMT)]The Mig-29 is already in Indian service and I would invisiage the carrier as being an airdefence carrier for a fleet much like the British used in the Falklands. The Mig-29 being proposed certainly has a few advantages over the harrier... the main one being it will not likely be operating 12,000km from home.
Lack of fixed wing AEW is a problem, but it is a problem now for all its current likely opponents too.
Why use the air launched Kh-41 from an Su-33K when you could launch 20 or more of the same weapon from a few FAC that has an air escort of 6 or so Mig-29Ks.
Sauron
"I think it is only right to occasionaly point out that while it is fun to compare, it's always easy to win the debate when you accept everything listed in the press handout."
The things I pointed out were merely to show that when you did not know enough about the performance (proven or not) of the aircraft involved except possibly the western aircraft you made assumptions based on "western superiority".
When Harry pointed out that the Mig in question was not junk and has some rather impressive technology inside it (including for export some French and other Super dooper Western technology) you start down the "it is unproven in the field" reply.
Well none of the aircraft are proven in the field, and even if they were this means nothing.
US troops fought well and were successful in WWII.
They also fought well but were unsuccessful in Vietnam.
The Same could be said of the Russians (but subsitituting Afghanistan of course).
The Same could be said of China (back to vietnam for the loss).
With NATO and US forces (AWACS, fuel supply, logisitic, recon, and other fighters like F-16, F-15, F-22, F-35, Typhoon, etc etc) behind both the Rafale and F-18 they can't fail for the UK or France or the US or another NATO country that can rely on such support.
For India failure to get that support is but one nuclear test away.
"...the Russian carrier particularly in view of the fact that there seems to be no immediate threat in the area..."
This was a misprint surely?
If Pakistani supported terrs broke into the US congress and shot some people and I said the US had no enemies justifying 350 billion a year Biff, Elp, Vortex and quite a few others would (quite justifyably) hit the roof.
"Sorry, to be a kill joy - but this whole Gorshkov thing looks like either a right royal screw up, or a massive exercise in disinformation."
The costs have always been very steep, but there is no other carrier available to the Indians of the same size and potential at the moment and building one would cost even more.
Jonesy
"(the latter requiring installation of the Pastel ESM system to provide direction)."
According to my information the Gardenya system already fitted to -M and -K is able to perform that function.
"Wheras the standard Su-33 was cleared for both Kh-31 models and, allegedly, the Kh-41 AShM. With the Rossikaya Avionika (sp.) upgrade or Su-27KM (I barely understand Russian designations as it stands) offering compatibility with the Kh-29 laser and TV missiles, the KAB series of PGM's etc. "
The Su-33 has been shown with many advanced weapons hung underneath it, but the KM upgrade has not been performed and all Su-33s have no more ground attack capability than the bog standard Su-27. (ie dumb bombs and unguided rockets.) The upgrade is being held up by the cockpit ergonomics whereby a standard Russian military cockpit will be designed (with appropriate changes) for every aircraft within reason from the recon helos (Ka-60/-62) and attack helos (Mi-28N/Ka-52N/Mi-24N etc) and fighter aircraft (Mig-29/Su-27 etc).
In comparison compatibility with Kh-29 laser and TV missiles as well as laser and TV guided bombs and ARMS and various weapons like the AS-13 and AS-18 (ie SLAM and SLAM-ER type weapons respectively) are all compatible with the -29K, with the -SMT upgrade adding compatibility with next gen weapons with TV, laser, IIR, and GPS guidance.
The real difference is radar range (SU-33 with old Su-27 set has slight range advantage... mainly due to size) but the 29K has synthetic apeture and ground mapping modes as well as training modes. And flight range which while important is crucial only for long range strikes which the -29 is not anyway (a long range strike aircraft).
Basically it is a defencive weapon... ie stops attacking aircraft and ships from getting close to engage the fleet.
(I realise most americans have trouble with weapons that are actually defencive, but I thought you'd understand Jonesy... ;-))
BTW only 6 hours before the fat guy arrives. :-)
Just looking at the model in your piccy Jonesy... the flight deck looks very narrow. If they widened it... either side of the island by 10-15 metres there'd be plenty of room. (The room the wrong side of the island could be used for parking aircraft and maybe a few extra lifts.)
... just an idea.
New
Posts: 1
By: Kurt Plummer
- 24th December 2001 at 06:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My IMO's
Rafale:
The Rafale BM is now the 'hot thing' as a two seat interdictor ala the landbased B(was D) STILL being at least 2 years away from debut and further monkeying up the _very low_ avionics standard (S2 I think now) of the naval fighter which renders it less than capable as an attack aircraft.
The RBE2 has had endless problems in development, being based on old-style (i.e. APQ-164/Zaslon type) passive-shifted phased array technology. Last I heard, there was kind of an open joke that 'when (British processor and firmware driven) AMSAR is ready, so too will the Rafale be!'.
The Rafale also suffers from 'follow the Americans' disease. Being originally a purely ATTACK replacement for the Jag, it was fighterized at a time when the Mirage 2000 was only /starting/ to become, again avionics driven, a useful platform, even as it lost the M2K's advantages of simplicity and singlehole class-sizing. All because of what the French saw in Lebanon in '82 and off Libya in '86.
There are other problems. AASM/Aramis is the only weapon the French have that can really be considered both indigenous and 'useful' on a day-to-day bomber basis. Especially for the naval role, they really hosed themselves with the dropping of ANS/ANF and similar actions with ARF/STAR have left them without a decent, small, ARM (though ARMIGER may help this). AS-30 is a joke (expensive, limited warhead, huge size) and APACHE/SCALP/Black-XX are both proliferation limited and HUGELY expensive for a 'both pylons today!' cruise missile capability (why oh why, not surface launch on a 400-600km system?).
I even have doubts about the viability of the 'one good thing' that the French CAN offer in the MICA weapons system. First, a 242lb wonder WILL NOT beat a 412lb AIM-120C5. It may not even beat it's predecessor S530D and that's a /SARH/ weapon. I don't know enough to say about the R-77 but on a motor:motor 'mass basis' the 435lb R-77M1 (which is to become the baseline for the 'AE' export class) should still beat it. And the Chinese ARE getting R-27AE with R-77 'coming soon'. While even the USN now has extended motor AMRAAM. I would further say that anything which goes to Taiwan, 'blackest of enemies' or no, stands about a 60% chance of ending up on the mainland and if I really wanted to fight on the far side of the Himalaya's or even in the South China Sea I would NOT want to have either the 'short of end of the pol' OR the 'second ownership' rights on a potentially compromised seeker. Again, IMO, ROC is nothing but a stalking horse 'wholesale house' for things that PRC wants to get their grubby mitts on, though the politics go very deep in doing it.
MiG-29:
The MIG-29SMTK is NOT based on the Alu-Lithi K and it does NOT have (for instance) the four pylon wing or the internal IFR probe. Even the replace-the-auxilliary-vents tankage is not as elegantly conceived, nor is the 'sharp' reprofiled LERX included from what I read.
If the drawing is accurate, it looks to me like a modification of the 9-13 Fulcrum-C with the humped spine for gas and (laughably) 2 MiG-21 tanks and two underwing 29 tanks (unjettisonable on the A) and a centerline (unjettisonable, unsupersonic on the A) /besides/. You will NOT be carrying anything like an AS-18 on the outermost pylon with this load!
Also, the Russians are basically shysters. They have been 'selling up' the Indians on the MiG-21 upgrade and nearly SEVEN YEARS ON the 'Su-30MKI' has /yet/ to be delivered with all the thrust vectoring, canard, ZHUK-MP phased array goodies. From what I've been told even the cockpits are little more advanced than the Su-30P demonstrator with it's SINGLE large EO display in the back. No MFD, no datalinks, _no Adder_, nothing. These are little more than Su-27UB with a wild paint scheme.
If the 'favored son' design bureaux cannot put together an honest upgrade package to help pay off Russia's /massive/ debt to India, how then can the second string be expected to play when even the folks at MiG-MAPO acknowledged that 'more than half' of the MiG-29M's avionics integration was yet to be accomplished when that program choked it's last back in '93?
Lastly, I never like a short wheebase with a long section of fuselage aft and a low base clearance on a carrier fighter. Even if the MASSIVE changes in appearance and fuel weight from the original 29M/K with their vastly different spine setup can be accounted for, that's a bad business for especially a STOBAR ramp hopper.
F-18E/F:
Yep, it's a drag pig. A PSless Pariah. A graveltruck on a washboard.
It turns like Mack not MacDonnell and it is STILL absent an AIM-9X/JHMCS to 'make up the difference' (though IMO it would be better off with WANDA/TADIRCM in any case).
It has poor stores integration with a lot of uncleared ordnance and high-fatigue carriage formats on the loads it can lift, it lacks the APG-79 and ATFLIR (and will continue to do so until about half the run is gone at which time the EFF will be 'non backwards compatible').
But.
Better Bullets Win.
All the Time.
Again, the AIM-120C is here and we will likely go black or end up signing on with the Merry Brits for FMRAAM rampower.
AARGM looks set to return a measure of the SEAD-advantagement on a _high speed_ standoff secondary seeker basis.
ITALD or MALD greatly enhance penetrability.
Tactihawk does so yet again.
_JDAM_ is the /only/ bombardment system on the planet capable of targeting through weather and some elements of RUG-III will likely reach even the initial F-18E/F blocks to provide an enhanced realtime SAR capability beyond 'post mission analysis'.
If you add to this (eventually) the SSB/SDB weapons system, you are looking at a capability which will give multiple impacts from single aircraft even if they DO end up going '3 across' on 480's. From 35-50nm out.
About the only thing which bothers me is the lack of updates to the AShM capability as I would dearly like to have a supersonic-to-100nm followon to Harpoon, small/cheap enough to be useful on everything from PCI to coastal AShM batteries in turn (multi carriage also favors saturation of advanced SAM defense).
Most importantly, IMO, is the advent of the Naval UCAV. The F-35 is not really designed to be a twin seat airframe in the way that the F-15/16/18 were, yet it promises to cost about 50-70 million dollars each (and indeed F-35C is the most expensive of the lot).
An F-18F'DC' combat mission controller could achieve similar capability with a flight of followon-to-Pegasus through the power of it's APG-79 while standing off at 1-way command link ranges for which no threat could viably reach it. And with 8-16 SDB on on a UCAV-N, you get get a HUGE payoff in the '10-15 million each' category vs. JSF at equal or better LO-penetration and '825nm to Kabul North' no-basein-priveleges radii.
We are looking 225 billion dollars in the face for a fighter mission that has basically ceased to exist. Everything is about suppressing a low-tens-at-worst 'threat inventory' of airframes and missile systems that were old in 1990. All the rest is about bombing the barbarians back into 3rd World stoneage submission or economically blackmailing the strategic (production, refinement, transport) economic resources of a 2nd Tier 'nation' that isn't that much better.
Furthermore, any export nation that wishes to buy from U.S. is looking at 'helping us amortize the SDD' to a similar amount so that they may pay /even more/.
This is an unsupportable conclusion in an era where all our assets are mixed, stretched, obsolete and just tired from a decade of 'peacekeeping'. All the more so there are at least five more major replacement programs waiting in the wings to replace them.
BUT, if we stick with what we've got, accept that things like wing-drop vs. buzz will never be fully resolved (building hardier weapons to handle it among other things) and move towards Better Bullets and UCAV roboUPS delivery, THEN we can have an exportable solution. Because the F-18E/F will move back up towards 700-800 airframe requirement, CSA will come onboard as a tanker and 'C2 integrator' (ISR), and UCAV's will take over from F-18C/D rather than the ungawdly expensive Just So Frelled.
At which point, (if they pass political muster) we can sell to others the F-18E with APG-73 RUG-II/II upgrade and AIM-120C at a price which they can afford.
And I presume that the world will once again begin to 'tail chase U.S.' in the development of a REAL uninhabited combat capability where issues about things like the STOBAR vs. CATOBAR question can be more realistically answered, on the basis of "how fast a cycle do you need when they can hang for 7-10hrs?" and "How much payload is enough when it hits within a meter and you can carry 8 more on a single rack?"
By: PhantomII
- 24th December 2001 at 06:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Su-33/MiG-29K
Haven't read the whole thread, but I will say that the Su-33 is a very capable fighter. If it ever gets "multi-role" upgrades, it will be superior to the MiG-29K in every way. The Su-33's as operated by Russia now can be equipped with the standard Flanker weapons, the AA-11, AA-10, and AA-8. The AA-12 can also be carried. Also, unguided bombs and rockets can be cairred. A recce pod can be fitted to the centerline or a buddy-tanker refuelling pod. Also, the massively large Kh-41 Moskit anti-ship missile can be carried on the centerline. As an alternative, the smaller Kh-35 (AS-20 Kayak) sea-skimming anti-ship missile can be carried.
New
Posts: 1,971
By: Glenn
- 24th December 2001 at 06:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A summary of things
I think most seem to agree that the Rafale is the pick of this group, getting back to the original question for a moment and with that the Rafale-M should give the French a very capable naval air arm well into the 21st century and if they do proceed with a second carrier of a similar class then its arguable to say that the French navy in this respect will be well up with the UK’s future carrier borne air group, and perhaps even on top of it. But that’s another debate.
As for the rest..
The Indians and the Mig-29SMTK
The Fulcrum is well and truly tried and tested with the Indian air force and any transition to operate the SMTK at sea will be smoother than most expect. The SMT upgrade represents a compromise by the Russian AF instead of purchasing the 2nd generation Mig-29M outright. It helps rectify a lot of the short falls in the original design and together with the proven aerodynamics, this will be a formidable multi-role machine able to employ almost the entire spectrum of Russian made weaponry, and if fitted with NATO-standard data buses, which the open architecture design has allowed for, then a wide range of Western weapons will be compatible as well. Now, take that and navalise it, and you have a very good fixed wing combat asset in your carrier borne air group. The load-outs as Garry mentioned will probably not be too heavy as to hinder the MTOW during STOBAR operations aboard the Gorshkov. Typical tactical mission war loads, whether they be for strike, CAS, or CAP, will probably not exceed the limit allowing max. internal fuel to be carried, and if they do, the Indians may resort to buddy tanking with the Russian UPAZ pod mounted on another Fulcrum, in other words top up the airborne fighter after take off. It remains to be seen to exactly what extent the SMTK operations will be mounted aboard any rejuvenated Gorshkov, but if it does happen it will be most interesting to keep an eye on. Considering the size and space limitations of the Gorshkov, the Fulcrum was the logical choice, and the embarked air wing is said to be up to 24 in all, both up top and below. Why not the standard Mig-29K instead? Good question, and I think the endurance factor of the SMTK probably had something to do with it, and possibly the cost, I am not sure.
Why the dual carrier groups?
As I stated earlier, the IN is looking to centre future Ops around 2 active CVBGs. People often immediately look at that and say why? Where is the threat? Well, when thinking about the ‘whys’, one has to look beyond Pakistan and forecast one’s mind into the future, probably beyond 2015. The Indians are looking, in my view, at setting the scene for regional sea dominance, i.e. the Indian Ocean, but also with the ability to project power and influence out of the area as well, in particular, East. The clear as a bell reason comes to mind right away, China and her ambitions. The two nations are no doubt going to be meeting each other more and more at sea, and if tension rises between them, or worse, they fight, then they will tussle to control the SLOCs vital to them both. India will be getting the head start with its’ carriers but China will have, or should have nuclear powered submarines deployed in greater numbers than India by a similar time. Chinese carrier operations are many years away, and the Indians will maintain an edge over the Chinese in this regard through experience. The Chinese will look to counter in other ways, hence the future SSN fleet, together with probably increasingly more powerful Surface combatants. The Indians are looking at the bigger picture. Some suggest that in future the IN may even be able to challenge US Indian Ocean dominance, but that's again, another story. The fact remains that the Indians are seeking a wider reach of influence, as the threat from next door would simply not justify needing such overwhelming naval power.
On some of the points raised by Jonesy regarding the Indian navy.
1. 3 preferably 4 CATOBAR carriers allowing for 2 deploying with 1 or 2 in refit/transit.
So far plans do not exceed just the two Air-Defence ships in future, but when the design is proven who knows. The platform will certainly be there to build again if they so desire. As to the type, again this remains a bit of a mystery, but most seem to feel that it will be CATOBAR, and recent design study models have this in mind. Anyone have solid details?
2. At least 6 AAW destroyers with a modern area-defence SAM system and command facilities to allow for 4 deploying with 2 in refit at any one time.
This will likely eventuate in numbers but system wise is anyone’s guess. Currently and at least for a while the best the Indians will field for AAW will be the Russian SA-N-7 backed up by the Israeli BARAK or other short ranged Indian built or Russian made SAMs. One future possibility and this may seem a little far-fetched but not improbable, is the acquisition by India of the new European technology in the form of Aster missiles and the associated radar and sensors. I don’t see US technology making it on Indian vessels to any great extent, and the Russian SA-N-6 system would warrant yet another class to accommodate it probably. The European choice becomes the next best option, and with them more willing to share their technology, future Indian ships mounting such systems will represent a great leap forward in that area.
3. Acceleration of the ATV SSN project and deployment of at least 4 units.
At least 6-8 initially would be my guess. And I agree this needs to get a kick on. Part of any future long-range carrier deployment should or would be better served by an enduring submarine escort as well.
4. Earliest completion of the Bangalore class and, if not outright retirement, upgrading of the Kashin's with Uran's and Barak SAM's to bring them into line with the rest of the fleet. The Delhi's and Bangalores also need outfitting to act as ASW command ships.
The Kashin class should go, and be replaced by another group of the new Talwar (Krivak-IV) class in my opinion. I also believe that the new Talwar class will become, or be utilised as ASW command ships leaving the Bangalore/Delhi class to focus on surface and anti-air warfare for which they have been primarily designed and equipped.
5. 3 or 4 more Aditya class auxilliaries.
Could not agree more here. The current Auxiliary fleet is minimal, and if they are serious about running two or perhaps even more carriers groups further out to sea, then they need to get busy here.
The Chinese carrier
This still remains an enigma, but most speculation about the design, or the possible design seem to point to a 50,000 ton class vessel, probably (more than likely) STOBAR, and having a fixed wing and rotary wing complement similar to the Russian Navy’s Kuznetsov. The Chinese design whatever form it finally takes will not appear for sometime, as the programme has been put on the backburner for at least the next decade. The primary fighter wing could consist of the Su-27K (Su-33) and with land-based Operations again been well and truly proven, this would seem the logical choice, but by 2015+ the Flanker-D will be nearly 30 years old, and becoming a somewhat antiquated option in light of new threats and capabilities possibly fielded by others then. Most other reports seem to suggest a navalised twin-engined version of the new multi-role J-10, and if this is so, such a J-10 variant would probably resemble a Fulcrum/Flanker layout if Russian assistance is once again sought and this would be expected.
Regardless of the details, if the Chinese don’t field their first CV until 2015-2020, it is not unreasonable to expect them to take many more years to be able to effectively operate that force at sea, and integrate it with future escorts and other support vessels as well. A grand plan that will cost billions and billions over the next generation in time, but I don’t expect a Chinese Carrier group to be any threat to Indian interests until well after 2015. This date of course may alter if China decides out of the blue one day to accelerate the programme, and that could still happen within this decade.
The Su-33
The decision to deploy the Flanker-D aboard the Russian CV Kuznetsov was a political one, as most would agree the Mig-29K is, or was then the better multi-role platform (still is probably). The original Su-33 was indeed nothing more than a warmed over and navalised Su-27 Flanker-B with the addition of canards, in other words still just a fighter, not a multi-role warplane in the true sense. However, I do recall a while ago some reports of upgrades that have at least cleared the Su-33 for use with radar guided ASMs, such as the Kh-31, Kh-35 and even the huge Kh-41, the air launched version of the naval 3M82/SS-N-22. Then again this could be work as part of the Su-27KM programme, which would eventually give the Su-33 a much wider range of air-to ground weaponry to employ thus maximising it’s multi-role capability. I still wait to hear firm confirmation as to the extent of any Su-33 upgrades.
Regards and all the best, Glenn.
(p.s. Hope all have a good Christmas, I am off camping for a few days with the all the family togteher again for the first time in 2 years. Should be fun. See you all in a few days - Enjoy!)
New
By: Anonymous
- 24th December 2001 at 10:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
correct
Stormrider just said it all....
elp
usa
New
Posts: 3,671
By: Geforce
- 24th December 2001 at 11:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Su-33 No, MiG-29K Yes
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 24-12-01 AT 11:21 AM (GMT)]Maybe a capable fighter, but one without a future. The only serious candidate for the Su-33 was the Indian Navy. They opted for the MiG-29K, because by that time, the Su-33 was not multirole. I think Russia made a wrong decision when acquiring the Su-33. The Russian Navy also operates some Su-25 on their carrier the Kuznetsov, but only temporary or for training. The nice thing about the MiG-29K is that it can take off from any carrier without the use of steam-catapults, only a ski-jump. Maybe Russia should invest in this fighter, as a successor for the Harriers or the A-4 (Thailand, Brazil). What to do with the remaining Su-33's? I don't think Russia really needs a carrier, better sell them. The Russian Navy has always worked without the carriers, in the future they could do this as well. A Navy is more than a floating airforce, maybe Russia can give this money to their Subs.
By: Harry
- 24th December 2001 at 13:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Su-33 No, MiG-29K Yes
>>They opted for the MiG-29K, because by that time, the Su-33 was not >>multirole.
Incorrect.It would be nearly impossible to operate the Su-33 from the Gorshkov given it's size and weight.Also,the Su-33 is too large even for the hangar lift to take below deck.There's also no-chance of a 32,000 ton ADS accomodating these monsters.
>>Indians aren't planning on using their carrier for a Kosovo/Iraq >>style strike on the Pakistani mainland.
Hmmm.Given the intensity of airstrikes from the Vikrant in East pakistan by mere Alizes and Seahawks,I would doubt the above.The most likely role for the Mig-29SMTKs would be heavy ant-shipping and neutralisation of shore targets.Also,given the proximity of Karachi harbor to major Indian airbases such as Jamnagar or even longewella,it's quite possible for Su-30s and other aircraft to join in and provide cover as well.
>>The MIG-29SMTK is NOT based on the Alu-Lithi K and it does NOT have >>(for instance) the four pylon wing or the internal IFR probe. Even >>the replace-the-auxilliary-vents tankage is not as elegantly >>conceived, nor is the 'sharp' reprofiled LERX included from what I >>read.
Perhaps a link to support the above would help?I don't recall ever coming across any of this which seems quite unlikely and unrealistic.
New
Posts: 2,907
By: Rabie
- 24th December 2001 at 14:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Su-33 No, MiG-29K Yes
welocme kurt to AFM (he always post essays like this guys).
By: Anonymous - 23rd December 2001 at 03:03 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: The Indian perspective.
"The Su-33 is very much a superior naval fighter to the Mig-29K on range and avionics alone. "
Sorry Jonesy but that is just not true. The Su-33 is a fighter only. It can only use AAMs and unguided bombs and rockets. Even the First Mig-29K (without the SMT upgrades) had laser and TV guided air to ground/sea weapons ground mapping radar etc etc.
Regarding your earlier comments about the -29s lack of taking off with a large warload... exactly why are you confusing it with a B-52?
During any bombing mission it will most likely be carrying 2 x 1,000-1,500kg LGB or TV guided bomb, three fuel tanks and maybe 2 AA-12s and 2 AA-11s. Jamming equipment all being internal. Aircraft flying with it will probably have ARMs as well as AAMs for support.
Mig-29K has takeoff run of less than 240m with weapon load without skijump and without "Blocks" holding it while it runs its engines up to full power.
"You can quote all the stats you want but until we see them actually operating on the carrier, its all speculation. Thats not just my idea, its the reality. In a few years, it will be very interesting to revisit this debate. We will actualy have operational records to look at and results. "
Very impressive Sauron. You say we can't really tell which will be the better aircraft till we see them perform. This is after Harry mentions what sort of capability the -29 has. Before you even knew anything about the -29K that was part of this discussion you said:
" ....but no matter how many letters they add on to the Mig-29, in this role, it will never be in the same class as the others."
Should you perhaps practise what you preach? BTW the extra letters represent upgrades in fuel capacity and range of targets that can be engaged as well as other avionics and hardware upgrades and have a rather significant effect on aircraft performance.
Anyway... enough grizzles.
I think the Rafale would come first for the French, the Mig for the Indians and the F-18 for the US.
I think without strings and with any sized carrier you wanted I'd give Rafale first, Mig-29 second and F-18 third place.
My reasons. Well the Rafale for looking cool, having good avionics and being better than previous French planes in that role and therefore an improvement.
The Mig-29 because it is very manouverable has good weapons and can be used on smaller carriers if necessary.
The F-18 comes last because someone Fkd up. It has less capability than both of the aircraft it replaced, it has all the latest gadgets and is insulated by being part of a war machine that is powerful enough to absorb its weaknesses, but it really is a second class weapon. }>
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 23rd December 2001 at 04:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE:
Garry,
Sorry I wasnt clearer. The information on Su-33 is accurate as far as I know. The MiG-29K initially (and the model I am referring to) was a modified M airframe and was capable of operating the standard AAM's in addition to Kh-31 AShM and Kh-31P ARMs (the latter requiring installation of the Pastel ESM system to provide direction). The Korabelnyy modifications reducing the internal fuel carriage to 5,670 litres or 1,498 US gallons.
Wheras the standard Su-33 was cleared for both Kh-31 models and, allegedly, the Kh-41 AShM. With the Rossikaya Avionika (sp.) upgrade or Su-27KM (I barely understand Russian designations as it stands) offering compatibility with the Kh-29 laser and TV missiles, the KAB series of PGM's etc. The equivalent model of Fulcrum being the -29SMTK or MiG-29K-2002 with the MIL-1553 databus and equivalent weapons compatability.
As to range, a factor whose importance cannot be overstressed in naval aviation for reasons I've stated ad nauseum, the figures I've seen published show the -33 to have a considerable advantage over the MiG design.
If you have contrary figures or details on anything written above I'd be interested to see them Garry.
Regards,
Steve
By: Anonymous - 23rd December 2001 at 05:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE:
Also at least the French carrier and the U.S. have a serious fixed wing carrier capable AWACs backing them up. A ski-jumper without a good AWACs is just short sighted.
elp
usa
Posts: 1,404
By: Sauron - 23rd December 2001 at 06:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: the Mig-29
Garry
You probably know more about the published material on all three jets than I do, but my second post was nothing more than to point out to Harry, the speculative nature of the detail he included about the Mig. There was no preaching as you imply. I think it is only right to occasionaly point out that while it is fun to compare, it's always easy to win the debate when you accept everything listed in the press handout.
I concur with those who also question the wisdom of India trying to develop the Russian carrier particularly in view of the fact that there seems to be no immediate threat in the area. Jonesy said it right when he termed it a "distraction" if they have long range plans similar to those he outlined. As he pointed out, why not put your resourses to work on the real goal. Is there anyone here from India that can give us a factual update on current status of the carrier or the Mig?
A question to Jonesy. Could you give us more about why you believe STOBAR is proven. Should the French have gone STOBAR for example? The USN?
Regards
Posts: 343
By: stormrider - 23rd December 2001 at 06:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: the Mig-29
No way if u have the money!
Posts: 839
By: Rosco - 23rd December 2001 at 09:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The Indian perspective.
Actually the Rafale's structure was designed first for a carrier environment and then lightened in the case of the land based version. Except for the lack of a wing fold the Rafale is probably the best carrier suited of the three.
Posts: 35
By: kyle - 23rd December 2001 at 10:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: the Mig-29
Sorry, to be a kill joy - but this whole Gorshkov thing looks like either a right royal screw up, or a massive exercise in disinformation. I vote for screw up.
-------------
India mulling costs associated with aircraft carrier acquisition
(Defense News, 23 November 2001)
The Indian government said it has not decided whether to acquire the aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov from Russia because of the high cost of modernization. Russian has threatened to sell the carrier for scrap if a deal with India is not signed by year's end, officials said. Defence Minister George Fernandes announced in Parliament the decision has not been made because the government is scrutinizing the detailed project document submitted recently by a team of Indian Navy officers.
An intergovernmental agreement was penned in October 2000 between the two countries that called for the acquisition of the aircraft carrier and its refit and modernization. A senior Indian Navy official said, "The refit and modernization of the Admiral Gorshkov would cost India $1 billion, and we are still not sure if the entire program is viable or not." He said the Russians would give the aging aircraft carrier to India as gesture of friendship. The Indian Navy has informed the Defence Ministry that the service cannot carry out the necessary repair and maintenance because no domestic naval dockyard is equipped to undertake aircraft carrier work, the Navy official added.
-------------------
Posts: 343
By: stormrider - 23rd December 2001 at 11:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: The Indian perspective.
so? i said it already ,but thanks for the details.
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder - 23rd December 2001 at 13:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: the
Elp, Dassault has for years manufactured caarier planes(Super Etendard) and maintained the Alize and Crusader. I have absolutely no doubt that the Rafale will handle the ocean environment as well as any other. The Rafale was designed from the beginning as a carrier capable plane. There is a common misconception that the Rafale was designed for land ops and then modified for carrier ops. This is not the case, and indeed it was one of the reasons that Dassault was never going to be able to join Typhoon Inc.-the carrrier requiremnt demanded side intakes.
Posts: 2,282
By: Harry - 23rd December 2001 at 14:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: the Mig-29
I'm sorry sauron but the only thing speculative about the details I've given is the radar of the Mig-29SMTK which maybe either the Zhuk-M or the Zhuk-27.Please don't assume things so easily and what I've mentioned are but a small amount of it's enhancemnets.Given it's features,the new Mig-29 is indeed an extremely capable and cost effective option which can take on most threats.
It may also be seen in another way if we consider a "potential loss".Assuming the primary targets of the Migs may be pakistani,I don't think it's worth sending in an expensive Rafael especially when the Migs can get the job done quite easily.Of course against China,it would be another matter.
As for warload,the standard suite for the -K itself is 4 AsHMs(2 Kh-31s,2 Kh-35) and 4 AAMs(2x R-73s 2x R-77s or 4x of either) which seems pretty good.India is also very likely to deploy rocket laucher pods on them which would be quite effective.
WRT PLAN carrier deployments,the differences between -K and Su-33 is quite small though the Su-33 does seem a far superior aircraft.I'm sure you know that the Russian Navy's decision to acquire the Su-33 over the Mig-29K(which was widely considered superior) was faced with severe criticism.The Su-33 enjoys greater range,warload and an edge in manouverability but the Mig-29SMTK would enjoy superior avionics and pilots which should balance the situation.What's missing is a canard system which the Mig-29 could definitely use to reduce the superiority in manouverability of the Su-33.
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 23rd December 2001 at 14:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: the Mig-29
Sauron,
Stormrider summed it up quite succintly in seven words! STOBAR is great if you dont have access to the resources or technology for CATOBAR operations. STOBAR ops are proven in the sense that the technique is in operation aboard the Russian fleet carrier Kuznetsov.
There are two main issues with STOBAR that arise from the lack of the catapult. Namely that of a lower sortie rate and performance inhibited airframes (i.e fast-jets with lower performance and no fixed wing support aircraft - doff cap to Elp!). The sortie rate problem is through the fact that to launch a heavily loaded aircraft requires the use of a bloody good run. Below is one of the most often seen images of a post-conversion Gorshkov. The aircraft roughly parallel with the aft of the superstructure is, allegedly, on the heavy load spot. You see where it is in relation to the landing-on area?.
Yup, right smack dab in the middle of it. Going by the diagrams I've seen there's a possibility that the JBD's on the short position may foul the landing strip also. So there's no possibility of simultaneous takeoff and landing events which has a very serious effect on sortie rates, also there is a safety aspect as well.
Imagine that MiG on the short spot launches and develops a problem (happens quite frequently to USN aircraft). He can just keep it airborne but needs to swing around for an emergency trap. Before he can do that with the Gorshkov in its pre-strike configuration, as pictured, the plane handlers will have to move both choppers and no less than 4 MiG's to clear the landing drag and, seeings as the deck park is full, that will probably mean striking at least a few airframes below deck. Bad news for Mr Fulcrum pilot if he's trying to get back aboard soonest as all that deck reconfiguration will take about 10 - 15 minutes with a well trained crew. If he cant the carrier just lost 5% or so of its combat airpower because some dumb matelot left his wrench were it could get sucked into an engine (wild example!).
In summary, IMHO, if you want an effective attack carrier you have to look at 40-50,000 tons, 30+ fast jet airgroup and a fixed wing AEW platform. The latter, at today's technology, absolutely dictates a catapult.
Regards,
Steve
Attachments:
Posts: 3,269
By: ink - 23rd December 2001 at 19:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: the Mig-29
Jonesy,
Your point is very effectively made but surely you must agree that the Indians aren't planning on using their carrier for a Kosovo/Iraq style strike on the Pakistani mainland. I suspect that the MiG-29s will more often be used in an air defense role (which requires significantly less ordenance).
By: Anonymous - 24th December 2001 at 05:02 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:05
RE: the Mig-29
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 24-12-01 AT 05:10 AM (GMT)]The Mig-29 is already in Indian service and I would invisiage the carrier as being an airdefence carrier for a fleet much like the British used in the Falklands. The Mig-29 being proposed certainly has a few advantages over the harrier... the main one being it will not likely be operating 12,000km from home.
Lack of fixed wing AEW is a problem, but it is a problem now for all its current likely opponents too.
Why use the air launched Kh-41 from an Su-33K when you could launch 20 or more of the same weapon from a few FAC that has an air escort of 6 or so Mig-29Ks.
Sauron
"I think it is only right to occasionaly point out that while it is fun to compare, it's always easy to win the debate when you accept everything listed in the press handout."
The things I pointed out were merely to show that when you did not know enough about the performance (proven or not) of the aircraft involved except possibly the western aircraft you made assumptions based on "western superiority".
When Harry pointed out that the Mig in question was not junk and has some rather impressive technology inside it (including for export some French and other Super dooper Western technology) you start down the "it is unproven in the field" reply.
Well none of the aircraft are proven in the field, and even if they were this means nothing.
US troops fought well and were successful in WWII.
They also fought well but were unsuccessful in Vietnam.
The Same could be said of the Russians (but subsitituting Afghanistan of course).
The Same could be said of China (back to vietnam for the loss).
With NATO and US forces (AWACS, fuel supply, logisitic, recon, and other fighters like F-16, F-15, F-22, F-35, Typhoon, etc etc) behind both the Rafale and F-18 they can't fail for the UK or France or the US or another NATO country that can rely on such support.
For India failure to get that support is but one nuclear test away.
"...the Russian carrier particularly in view of the fact that there seems to be no immediate threat in the area..."
This was a misprint surely?
If Pakistani supported terrs broke into the US congress and shot some people and I said the US had no enemies justifying 350 billion a year Biff, Elp, Vortex and quite a few others would (quite justifyably) hit the roof.
"Sorry, to be a kill joy - but this whole Gorshkov thing looks like either a right royal screw up, or a massive exercise in disinformation."
The costs have always been very steep, but there is no other carrier available to the Indians of the same size and potential at the moment and building one would cost even more.
Jonesy
"(the latter requiring installation of the Pastel ESM system to provide direction)."
According to my information the Gardenya system already fitted to -M and -K is able to perform that function.
"Wheras the standard Su-33 was cleared for both Kh-31 models and, allegedly, the Kh-41 AShM. With the Rossikaya Avionika (sp.) upgrade or Su-27KM (I barely understand Russian designations as it stands) offering compatibility with the Kh-29 laser and TV missiles, the KAB series of PGM's etc. "
The Su-33 has been shown with many advanced weapons hung underneath it, but the KM upgrade has not been performed and all Su-33s have no more ground attack capability than the bog standard Su-27. (ie dumb bombs and unguided rockets.) The upgrade is being held up by the cockpit ergonomics whereby a standard Russian military cockpit will be designed (with appropriate changes) for every aircraft within reason from the recon helos (Ka-60/-62) and attack helos (Mi-28N/Ka-52N/Mi-24N etc) and fighter aircraft (Mig-29/Su-27 etc).
In comparison compatibility with Kh-29 laser and TV missiles as well as laser and TV guided bombs and ARMS and various weapons like the AS-13 and AS-18 (ie SLAM and SLAM-ER type weapons respectively) are all compatible with the -29K, with the -SMT upgrade adding compatibility with next gen weapons with TV, laser, IIR, and GPS guidance.
The real difference is radar range (SU-33 with old Su-27 set has slight range advantage... mainly due to size) but the 29K has synthetic apeture and ground mapping modes as well as training modes. And flight range which while important is crucial only for long range strikes which the -29 is not anyway (a long range strike aircraft).
Basically it is a defencive weapon... ie stops attacking aircraft and ships from getting close to engage the fleet.
(I realise most americans have trouble with weapons that are actually defencive, but I thought you'd understand Jonesy... ;-))
BTW only 6 hours before the fat guy arrives. :-)
Just looking at the model in your piccy Jonesy... the flight deck looks very narrow. If they widened it... either side of the island by 10-15 metres there'd be plenty of room. (The room the wrong side of the island could be used for parking aircraft and maybe a few extra lifts.)
... just an idea.
Posts: 1
By: Kurt Plummer - 24th December 2001 at 06:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My IMO's
Rafale:
The Rafale BM is now the 'hot thing' as a two seat interdictor ala the landbased B(was D) STILL being at least 2 years away from debut and further monkeying up the _very low_ avionics standard (S2 I think now) of the naval fighter which renders it less than capable as an attack aircraft.
The RBE2 has had endless problems in development, being based on old-style (i.e. APQ-164/Zaslon type) passive-shifted phased array technology. Last I heard, there was kind of an open joke that 'when (British processor and firmware driven) AMSAR is ready, so too will the Rafale be!'.
The Rafale also suffers from 'follow the Americans' disease. Being originally a purely ATTACK replacement for the Jag, it was fighterized at a time when the Mirage 2000 was only /starting/ to become, again avionics driven, a useful platform, even as it lost the M2K's advantages of simplicity and singlehole class-sizing. All because of what the French saw in Lebanon in '82 and off Libya in '86.
There are other problems. AASM/Aramis is the only weapon the French have that can really be considered both indigenous and 'useful' on a day-to-day bomber basis. Especially for the naval role, they really hosed themselves with the dropping of ANS/ANF and similar actions with ARF/STAR have left them without a decent, small, ARM (though ARMIGER may help this). AS-30 is a joke (expensive, limited warhead, huge size) and APACHE/SCALP/Black-XX are both proliferation limited and HUGELY expensive for a 'both pylons today!' cruise missile capability (why oh why, not surface launch on a 400-600km system?).
I even have doubts about the viability of the 'one good thing' that the French CAN offer in the MICA weapons system. First, a 242lb wonder WILL NOT beat a 412lb AIM-120C5. It may not even beat it's predecessor S530D and that's a /SARH/ weapon. I don't know enough to say about the R-77 but on a motor:motor 'mass basis' the 435lb R-77M1 (which is to become the baseline for the 'AE' export class) should still beat it. And the Chinese ARE getting R-27AE with R-77 'coming soon'. While even the USN now has extended motor AMRAAM. I would further say that anything which goes to Taiwan, 'blackest of enemies' or no, stands about a 60% chance of ending up on the mainland and if I really wanted to fight on the far side of the Himalaya's or even in the South China Sea I would NOT want to have either the 'short of end of the pol' OR the 'second ownership' rights on a potentially compromised seeker. Again, IMO, ROC is nothing but a stalking horse 'wholesale house' for things that PRC wants to get their grubby mitts on, though the politics go very deep in doing it.
MiG-29:
The MIG-29SMTK is NOT based on the Alu-Lithi K and it does NOT have (for instance) the four pylon wing or the internal IFR probe. Even the replace-the-auxilliary-vents tankage is not as elegantly conceived, nor is the 'sharp' reprofiled LERX included from what I read.
If the drawing is accurate, it looks to me like a modification of the 9-13 Fulcrum-C with the humped spine for gas and (laughably) 2 MiG-21 tanks and two underwing 29 tanks (unjettisonable on the A) and a centerline (unjettisonable, unsupersonic on the A) /besides/. You will NOT be carrying anything like an AS-18 on the outermost pylon with this load!
Also, the Russians are basically shysters. They have been 'selling up' the Indians on the MiG-21 upgrade and nearly SEVEN YEARS ON the 'Su-30MKI' has /yet/ to be delivered with all the thrust vectoring, canard, ZHUK-MP phased array goodies. From what I've been told even the cockpits are little more advanced than the Su-30P demonstrator with it's SINGLE large EO display in the back. No MFD, no datalinks, _no Adder_, nothing. These are little more than Su-27UB with a wild paint scheme.
If the 'favored son' design bureaux cannot put together an honest upgrade package to help pay off Russia's /massive/ debt to India, how then can the second string be expected to play when even the folks at MiG-MAPO acknowledged that 'more than half' of the MiG-29M's avionics integration was yet to be accomplished when that program choked it's last back in '93?
Lastly, I never like a short wheebase with a long section of fuselage aft and a low base clearance on a carrier fighter. Even if the MASSIVE changes in appearance and fuel weight from the original 29M/K with their vastly different spine setup can be accounted for, that's a bad business for especially a STOBAR ramp hopper.
F-18E/F:
Yep, it's a drag pig. A PSless Pariah. A graveltruck on a washboard.
It turns like Mack not MacDonnell and it is STILL absent an AIM-9X/JHMCS to 'make up the difference' (though IMO it would be better off with WANDA/TADIRCM in any case).
It has poor stores integration with a lot of uncleared ordnance and high-fatigue carriage formats on the loads it can lift, it lacks the APG-79 and ATFLIR (and will continue to do so until about half the run is gone at which time the EFF will be 'non backwards compatible').
But.
Better Bullets Win.
All the Time.
Again, the AIM-120C is here and we will likely go black or end up signing on with the Merry Brits for FMRAAM rampower.
AARGM looks set to return a measure of the SEAD-advantagement on a _high speed_ standoff secondary seeker basis.
ITALD or MALD greatly enhance penetrability.
Tactihawk does so yet again.
_JDAM_ is the /only/ bombardment system on the planet capable of targeting through weather and some elements of RUG-III will likely reach even the initial F-18E/F blocks to provide an enhanced realtime SAR capability beyond 'post mission analysis'.
If you add to this (eventually) the SSB/SDB weapons system, you are looking at a capability which will give multiple impacts from single aircraft even if they DO end up going '3 across' on 480's. From 35-50nm out.
About the only thing which bothers me is the lack of updates to the AShM capability as I would dearly like to have a supersonic-to-100nm followon to Harpoon, small/cheap enough to be useful on everything from PCI to coastal AShM batteries in turn (multi carriage also favors saturation of advanced SAM defense).
Most importantly, IMO, is the advent of the Naval UCAV. The F-35 is not really designed to be a twin seat airframe in the way that the F-15/16/18 were, yet it promises to cost about 50-70 million dollars each (and indeed F-35C is the most expensive of the lot).
An F-18F'DC' combat mission controller could achieve similar capability with a flight of followon-to-Pegasus through the power of it's APG-79 while standing off at 1-way command link ranges for which no threat could viably reach it. And with 8-16 SDB on on a UCAV-N, you get get a HUGE payoff in the '10-15 million each' category vs. JSF at equal or better LO-penetration and '825nm to Kabul North' no-basein-priveleges radii.
We are looking 225 billion dollars in the face for a fighter mission that has basically ceased to exist. Everything is about suppressing a low-tens-at-worst 'threat inventory' of airframes and missile systems that were old in 1990. All the rest is about bombing the barbarians back into 3rd World stoneage submission or economically blackmailing the strategic (production, refinement, transport) economic resources of a 2nd Tier 'nation' that isn't that much better.
Furthermore, any export nation that wishes to buy from U.S. is looking at 'helping us amortize the SDD' to a similar amount so that they may pay /even more/.
This is an unsupportable conclusion in an era where all our assets are mixed, stretched, obsolete and just tired from a decade of 'peacekeeping'. All the more so there are at least five more major replacement programs waiting in the wings to replace them.
BUT, if we stick with what we've got, accept that things like wing-drop vs. buzz will never be fully resolved (building hardier weapons to handle it among other things) and move towards Better Bullets and UCAV roboUPS delivery, THEN we can have an exportable solution. Because the F-18E/F will move back up towards 700-800 airframe requirement, CSA will come onboard as a tanker and 'C2 integrator' (ISR), and UCAV's will take over from F-18C/D rather than the ungawdly expensive Just So Frelled.
At which point, (if they pass political muster) we can sell to others the F-18E with APG-73 RUG-II/II upgrade and AIM-120C at a price which they can afford.
And I presume that the world will once again begin to 'tail chase U.S.' in the development of a REAL uninhabited combat capability where issues about things like the STOBAR vs. CATOBAR question can be more realistically answered, on the basis of "how fast a cycle do you need when they can hang for 7-10hrs?" and "How much payload is enough when it hits within a meter and you can carry 8 more on a single rack?"
Kurt Plummer
Posts: 7,989
By: PhantomII - 24th December 2001 at 06:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Su-33/MiG-29K
Haven't read the whole thread, but I will say that the Su-33 is a very capable fighter. If it ever gets "multi-role" upgrades, it will be superior to the MiG-29K in every way. The Su-33's as operated by Russia now can be equipped with the standard Flanker weapons, the AA-11, AA-10, and AA-8. The AA-12 can also be carried. Also, unguided bombs and rockets can be cairred. A recce pod can be fitted to the centerline or a buddy-tanker refuelling pod. Also, the massively large Kh-41 Moskit anti-ship missile can be carried on the centerline. As an alternative, the smaller Kh-35 (AS-20 Kayak) sea-skimming anti-ship missile can be carried.
Posts: 1,971
By: Glenn - 24th December 2001 at 06:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A summary of things
I think most seem to agree that the Rafale is the pick of this group, getting back to the original question for a moment and with that the Rafale-M should give the French a very capable naval air arm well into the 21st century and if they do proceed with a second carrier of a similar class then its arguable to say that the French navy in this respect will be well up with the UK’s future carrier borne air group, and perhaps even on top of it. But that’s another debate.
As for the rest..
The Indians and the Mig-29SMTK
The Fulcrum is well and truly tried and tested with the Indian air force and any transition to operate the SMTK at sea will be smoother than most expect. The SMT upgrade represents a compromise by the Russian AF instead of purchasing the 2nd generation Mig-29M outright. It helps rectify a lot of the short falls in the original design and together with the proven aerodynamics, this will be a formidable multi-role machine able to employ almost the entire spectrum of Russian made weaponry, and if fitted with NATO-standard data buses, which the open architecture design has allowed for, then a wide range of Western weapons will be compatible as well. Now, take that and navalise it, and you have a very good fixed wing combat asset in your carrier borne air group. The load-outs as Garry mentioned will probably not be too heavy as to hinder the MTOW during STOBAR operations aboard the Gorshkov. Typical tactical mission war loads, whether they be for strike, CAS, or CAP, will probably not exceed the limit allowing max. internal fuel to be carried, and if they do, the Indians may resort to buddy tanking with the Russian UPAZ pod mounted on another Fulcrum, in other words top up the airborne fighter after take off. It remains to be seen to exactly what extent the SMTK operations will be mounted aboard any rejuvenated Gorshkov, but if it does happen it will be most interesting to keep an eye on. Considering the size and space limitations of the Gorshkov, the Fulcrum was the logical choice, and the embarked air wing is said to be up to 24 in all, both up top and below. Why not the standard Mig-29K instead? Good question, and I think the endurance factor of the SMTK probably had something to do with it, and possibly the cost, I am not sure.
Why the dual carrier groups?
As I stated earlier, the IN is looking to centre future Ops around 2 active CVBGs. People often immediately look at that and say why? Where is the threat? Well, when thinking about the ‘whys’, one has to look beyond Pakistan and forecast one’s mind into the future, probably beyond 2015. The Indians are looking, in my view, at setting the scene for regional sea dominance, i.e. the Indian Ocean, but also with the ability to project power and influence out of the area as well, in particular, East. The clear as a bell reason comes to mind right away, China and her ambitions. The two nations are no doubt going to be meeting each other more and more at sea, and if tension rises between them, or worse, they fight, then they will tussle to control the SLOCs vital to them both. India will be getting the head start with its’ carriers but China will have, or should have nuclear powered submarines deployed in greater numbers than India by a similar time. Chinese carrier operations are many years away, and the Indians will maintain an edge over the Chinese in this regard through experience. The Chinese will look to counter in other ways, hence the future SSN fleet, together with probably increasingly more powerful Surface combatants. The Indians are looking at the bigger picture. Some suggest that in future the IN may even be able to challenge US Indian Ocean dominance, but that's again, another story. The fact remains that the Indians are seeking a wider reach of influence, as the threat from next door would simply not justify needing such overwhelming naval power.
On some of the points raised by Jonesy regarding the Indian navy.
1. 3 preferably 4 CATOBAR carriers allowing for 2 deploying with 1 or 2 in refit/transit.
So far plans do not exceed just the two Air-Defence ships in future, but when the design is proven who knows. The platform will certainly be there to build again if they so desire. As to the type, again this remains a bit of a mystery, but most seem to feel that it will be CATOBAR, and recent design study models have this in mind. Anyone have solid details?
2. At least 6 AAW destroyers with a modern area-defence SAM system and command facilities to allow for 4 deploying with 2 in refit at any one time.
This will likely eventuate in numbers but system wise is anyone’s guess. Currently and at least for a while the best the Indians will field for AAW will be the Russian SA-N-7 backed up by the Israeli BARAK or other short ranged Indian built or Russian made SAMs. One future possibility and this may seem a little far-fetched but not improbable, is the acquisition by India of the new European technology in the form of Aster missiles and the associated radar and sensors. I don’t see US technology making it on Indian vessels to any great extent, and the Russian SA-N-6 system would warrant yet another class to accommodate it probably. The European choice becomes the next best option, and with them more willing to share their technology, future Indian ships mounting such systems will represent a great leap forward in that area.
3. Acceleration of the ATV SSN project and deployment of at least 4 units.
At least 6-8 initially would be my guess. And I agree this needs to get a kick on. Part of any future long-range carrier deployment should or would be better served by an enduring submarine escort as well.
4. Earliest completion of the Bangalore class and, if not outright retirement, upgrading of the Kashin's with Uran's and Barak SAM's to bring them into line with the rest of the fleet. The Delhi's and Bangalores also need outfitting to act as ASW command ships.
The Kashin class should go, and be replaced by another group of the new Talwar (Krivak-IV) class in my opinion. I also believe that the new Talwar class will become, or be utilised as ASW command ships leaving the Bangalore/Delhi class to focus on surface and anti-air warfare for which they have been primarily designed and equipped.
5. 3 or 4 more Aditya class auxilliaries.
Could not agree more here. The current Auxiliary fleet is minimal, and if they are serious about running two or perhaps even more carriers groups further out to sea, then they need to get busy here.
The Chinese carrier
This still remains an enigma, but most speculation about the design, or the possible design seem to point to a 50,000 ton class vessel, probably (more than likely) STOBAR, and having a fixed wing and rotary wing complement similar to the Russian Navy’s Kuznetsov. The Chinese design whatever form it finally takes will not appear for sometime, as the programme has been put on the backburner for at least the next decade. The primary fighter wing could consist of the Su-27K (Su-33) and with land-based Operations again been well and truly proven, this would seem the logical choice, but by 2015+ the Flanker-D will be nearly 30 years old, and becoming a somewhat antiquated option in light of new threats and capabilities possibly fielded by others then. Most other reports seem to suggest a navalised twin-engined version of the new multi-role J-10, and if this is so, such a J-10 variant would probably resemble a Fulcrum/Flanker layout if Russian assistance is once again sought and this would be expected.
Regardless of the details, if the Chinese don’t field their first CV until 2015-2020, it is not unreasonable to expect them to take many more years to be able to effectively operate that force at sea, and integrate it with future escorts and other support vessels as well. A grand plan that will cost billions and billions over the next generation in time, but I don’t expect a Chinese Carrier group to be any threat to Indian interests until well after 2015. This date of course may alter if China decides out of the blue one day to accelerate the programme, and that could still happen within this decade.
The Su-33
The decision to deploy the Flanker-D aboard the Russian CV Kuznetsov was a political one, as most would agree the Mig-29K is, or was then the better multi-role platform (still is probably). The original Su-33 was indeed nothing more than a warmed over and navalised Su-27 Flanker-B with the addition of canards, in other words still just a fighter, not a multi-role warplane in the true sense. However, I do recall a while ago some reports of upgrades that have at least cleared the Su-33 for use with radar guided ASMs, such as the Kh-31, Kh-35 and even the huge Kh-41, the air launched version of the naval 3M82/SS-N-22. Then again this could be work as part of the Su-27KM programme, which would eventually give the Su-33 a much wider range of air-to ground weaponry to employ thus maximising it’s multi-role capability. I still wait to hear firm confirmation as to the extent of any Su-33 upgrades.
Regards and all the best, Glenn.
(p.s. Hope all have a good Christmas, I am off camping for a few days with the all the family togteher again for the first time in 2 years. Should be fun. See you all in a few days - Enjoy!)
By: Anonymous - 24th December 2001 at 10:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
correct
Stormrider just said it all....
elp
usa
Posts: 3,671
By: Geforce - 24th December 2001 at 11:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Su-33 No, MiG-29K Yes
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 24-12-01 AT 11:21 AM (GMT)]Maybe a capable fighter, but one without a future. The only serious candidate for the Su-33 was the Indian Navy. They opted for the MiG-29K, because by that time, the Su-33 was not multirole. I think Russia made a wrong decision when acquiring the Su-33. The Russian Navy also operates some Su-25 on their carrier the Kuznetsov, but only temporary or for training. The nice thing about the MiG-29K is that it can take off from any carrier without the use of steam-catapults, only a ski-jump. Maybe Russia should invest in this fighter, as a successor for the Harriers or the A-4 (Thailand, Brazil). What to do with the remaining Su-33's? I don't think Russia really needs a carrier, better sell them. The Russian Navy has always worked without the carriers, in the future they could do this as well. A Navy is more than a floating airforce, maybe Russia can give this money to their Subs.
Posts: 2,282
By: Harry - 24th December 2001 at 13:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Su-33 No, MiG-29K Yes
>>They opted for the MiG-29K, because by that time, the Su-33 was not >>multirole.
Incorrect.It would be nearly impossible to operate the Su-33 from the Gorshkov given it's size and weight.Also,the Su-33 is too large even for the hangar lift to take below deck.There's also no-chance of a 32,000 ton ADS accomodating these monsters.
>>Indians aren't planning on using their carrier for a Kosovo/Iraq >>style strike on the Pakistani mainland.
Hmmm.Given the intensity of airstrikes from the Vikrant in East pakistan by mere Alizes and Seahawks,I would doubt the above.The most likely role for the Mig-29SMTKs would be heavy ant-shipping and neutralisation of shore targets.Also,given the proximity of Karachi harbor to major Indian airbases such as Jamnagar or even longewella,it's quite possible for Su-30s and other aircraft to join in and provide cover as well.
>>The MIG-29SMTK is NOT based on the Alu-Lithi K and it does NOT have >>(for instance) the four pylon wing or the internal IFR probe. Even >>the replace-the-auxilliary-vents tankage is not as elegantly >>conceived, nor is the 'sharp' reprofiled LERX included from what I >>read.
Perhaps a link to support the above would help?I don't recall ever coming across any of this which seems quite unlikely and unrealistic.
Posts: 2,907
By: Rabie - 24th December 2001 at 14:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Su-33 No, MiG-29K Yes
welocme kurt to AFM (he always post essays like this guys).
rabie :9