Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 544

Thread: MiG-29 Fulcrum

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,042
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    UAE hasn't just placed an order and waited up until LM develops what they asked for. On the contrary, Emirs have paid the development from their own pockets. A big difference..

    At the times UAE have placed the order, the APG-80, too, was not available. It's Emiri money that made the APG-80 happen. It's a tribute to F-16 and Mirage 2000 that UAE found it worthy to pay for newer versions - but let's be serious, every other major aerospace company could have achieved the same or similar under that circumstances.
    But the APG-63(v)2, APG-77, APG-79, APQ-181 existed, and no other aerospace company was as close to having a functioning AESA radar. They weren't sitting on the technology waiting for an investor. They were having to catch up.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,398
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightwing View Post
    But the APG-63(v)2, APG-77, APG-79, APQ-181 existed, and no other aerospace company was as close to having a functioning AESA radar. They weren't sitting on the technology waiting for an investor. They were having to catch up.
    You're obviously not reading my posts. I have said clearly that the MiG-35 from 7 years ago would have had something like Zhuk-MFE, which is PESA.

    BTW, APQ-181 is not AESA..

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,042
    The current version is AESA, but you're correct- the original was passive. I did read your posts though, which is why I said it wouldn't have mattered if a rich nation had ordered the plane earlier, as it would be equipped differently than the current demonstrator aircraft. Even those aircraft don't have the production representative avionics in them, as they're still under development.
    Last edited by wrightwing; 12th June 2010 at 16:38.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Země Koruny české, Unie evropská
    Posts
    472



















  5. #95
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Země Koruny české, Unie evropská
    Posts
    472
















  6. #96
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,036
    gorgeous pics Rumcajs !

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3
    Serbian AF
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	_D200909130531.jpg 
Views:	296 
Size:	82.9 KB 
ID:	185524   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	126.jpg 
Views:	333 
Size:	147.5 KB 
ID:	185525  

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    180
    Now we are talking..... :diablo:
    Thanks Rumcajs and Fishbed011.
    The Czech Mig-29 numbered 9207 looks so graceful !!!!

    ~Ashish.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    118
    What will happen to Hungarian MiG-29s after they will be retired this year? Are there any plans to sell them to other Fulcrum operators like Poland, Bulgaria or Slovakia?

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,114
    Regarding the upgrades , dont forget the Ukrainian Mig-29MU1, aparently the first machines were delivered early this year, it has upgraded radar (N-019U2), and an updated cockpit ...

    Also the well known Belarussian Mig-29BMs aswell ,which adds N-019P radar , improved avionics, new weapons cleared, plus IFR...

    I dont know exactly how many of these upgraded birds were/will be procured , but imo they're getting quite close to the capabilities of the Mig-29SMT 9.17( N-019MP equiped variant), which i guess its not bad at all...

    Speaking of which , what are the russians doing about the legacy Mig-29s upgrade ? There's an interesting article , admitedly from 2004 , stating that they were interested then in upgrading most of their 9.13s( and UB) to a standard similar to the N-019MP equipped SMT ( SM2 ? ), with avionics supplied by Ruskaya Avionika having considerable commonality with Su-30MKK ( no mention of IFR tho )...any news on this upgrade as of recently ?

    (IMO such an upgrade would make perfect sense ,the Su-27 , Su-25 ,Su-24 , Mig-31 all had /have /will have a conservative, cost effective yet sound upgrade ,rather than a "deep" one... )


    Thanks .

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by mack8 View Post

    Speaking of which , what are the russians doing about the legacy Mig-29s upgrade ? There's an interesting article , admitedly from 2004 , stating that they were interested then in upgrading most of their 9.13s( and UB) to a standard similar to the N-019MP equipped SMT ( SM2 ? ), with avionics supplied by Ruskaya Avionika having considerable commonality with Su-30MKK ( no mention of IFR tho )...any news on this upgrade as of recently ?
    They’re doing nothing. Russkaya Avionika no longer exists, and VVS abandoned their plans of upgrading 29s in favor of Su-27SM program and buying Su-35s.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,398
    Quote Originally Posted by mack8 View Post
    Also the well known Belarussian Mig-29BMs aswell ,which adds N-019P radar , improved avionics, new weapons cleared, plus IFR...

    I dont know exactly how many of these upgraded birds were/will be procured , but imo they're getting quite close to the capabilities of the Mig-29SMT 9.17( N-019MP equiped variant), which i guess its not bad at all...
    Not that many weapons cleared for MiG-29BM. From the chart I have I can only deduce following types:

    R-27R, R-27T, R-27ER, R-27ET (max. 2x)
    R-60M, R-73 (max. 6x)
    R-77 RVV-AE (max. 6x)
    Kh-29L, Kh-29T, Kh-31A (max. 2x)
    Kh-25ML (max. 4x)
    KAB-500L, KAB-500KR (max. 4x)
    S-24, S-5, S-8, S-13 (max. 4x)
    dumb bombs 100-500kg (max. 4x)
    2x500kg+4x250kg dumb bombs on dual rack on inner pylon
    Kh-31P (max. 2x) with another underwing pylon occupied by L-150-22

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    8,085
    So the SMT's the Russians have now are all that they will get? The rest of the fleet will be scrapped? Seems like a waste to me...
    Fox-4!

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    408
    They have limited funds(but who doesn't?). They've chosen upgrades for Su-27 over MiG-29. It's that simple.
    Last edited by Grey Area; 9th July 2010 at 15:59. Reason: CoC Item 15

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,877
    Quote Originally Posted by PhantomII View Post
    So the SMT's the Russians have now are all that they will get? The rest of the fleet will be scrapped? Seems like a waste to me...

    Not really..
    The legacy 'fulcrum' has a lousy mission range.
    Smokey RD-33 engine that gobbles a lot of fuel .
    Poor Avionics for the most part.

    What is best in the long term RuAF procurment plans, that the question here..


    But a shame to see they go out of service.
    But not out of Aviation history.
    Hell, perhaps Pride's Aircraft will get a deal here for a cheap nickle


    Thanks
    Last edited by haavarla; 16th June 2010 at 14:40.

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,398
    Quote Originally Posted by PhantomII View Post
    So the SMT's the Russians have now are all that they will get? The rest of the fleet will be scrapped? Seems like a waste to me...
    Not quite. Their navy has chosen MiG-29K to replace Su-33s. Plus the air force has ordered two dozens MiG-35s to support MiG's chances in Indian MRCA deal. Hard to sell an aircraft that is not even in your domestic inventory. But whether these will actually be delivered if MiG-35 doesn't win the MRCA is another question.

    The upgrade programme for their baseline Fulcrums has been cancelled in order to preserve funds for Su-27SM and other programs.

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    560
    Wait, what happened to Russkaya Avionika? Did they get swallowed up by Russian Technologies? I generally dont miss things like that happening.

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,081
    Quote Originally Posted by PhantomII View Post
    So the SMT's the Russians have now are all that they will get? The rest of the fleet will be scrapped? Seems like a waste to me...
    Not really just over 200 will be kept in total to equip squadrons after reorganisation and be part of a brigade. The former divisions, regiments a.s. o. are gone and be replaced by ~ 60 "Flying Bases" or Airbases with a 4 digit number and its flying squadrons. Many will have mixed brigades with different aircraft squadrons. The new squadrons will receive the numbers of former regiments to continue the tradition of that similar the French way.

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Iqaluit, NU. CANADA.
    Posts
    436
    Quote Originally Posted by fulcrum-aholic View Post
    MiG-29 '01' I can never forget that pic!!! I think the one being intercepted by a Finnish or Swedish fighter/recon just before the Fulcrums first went to Finland?! I always have difficulty finding that pic on the Internet...
    Here's the pic!!! My all-time favourite and too bad I can't find any higher resolution. Other pics included. Ah, the older pics are sure something that you can't forget and remember later on...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	mig-29-DDST8708189_JPG.jpg 
Views:	281 
Size:	32.3 KB 
ID:	186375   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	mig-29_13.jpg 
Views:	326 
Size:	43.3 KB 
ID:	186376   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	clipboard01bj9.jpg 
Views:	274 
Size:	31.1 KB 
ID:	186377  

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    8,085
    Yeah, I read up on the Russian reorganization after I posted this originally and its interesting what they are planning on doing. As mentioned, it seems that the MiG-29 isn't in as bad of shape in its home country as I had thought. The news on the MiG-29K's and MiG-35's is new to me though.

    If the funds are there the MiG-29K's replacing the Su-33's on the Kuznetsov sounds like a good idea as it offers a true multi-role capability that the Su-33's cannot provide...at least not in their current state. I'd like to see that happen.....would be neat to see photos of MiG-29's flying off carrier decks in two different countries. Not that many carrier-based airplanes you can say that about (F2H, A-4, F-4, & F-8 are the four types that come to mind).
    Fox-4!

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,398
    While the basic idea of a MiG-29 replacing soemthing Su-27-based is pretty weird and unusual, the MiG-29Ks are indeed the most logical option. The Su-33s are worn and torn and their upgrade would be uneconomical. But maybe Russia could ask China to provide some fresh built J-15s? :diablo:

    Anyway, I think that Kuznetsow was too little of a ship to support something as huge as Su-33. Maybe the introduction of MiG-29K will also increase the number of airframes carried, thus boosting the overall fleet capability?

    edit: you forgot Super Etendard (FR/AR), Breguet Alize (FR/IN), E-2 Hawkeye (US/FR), Hawker Sea Hawk (UK/IN) and Harriers (US/UK/SP/IT/TH/IN)
    Last edited by Grey Area; 9th July 2010 at 15:59. Reason: CoC Item 15

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,561
    Great Article on MIG 35/29K orig posted on BR by andy B

    http://ifile.it/w7xfebs/MIG_35.zip
    Love Planes, Live Planes

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Malmesbury UK
    Posts
    3,267
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Anyway, I think that Kuznetsow was too little of a ship to support something as huge as Su-33. Maybe the introduction of MiG-29K will also increase the number of airframes carried, thus boosting the overall fleet capability?
    That is a popular misconception.

    With its folding wings and tailplanes, plus the folding tailcone and nose pitot, the 'footprint' of the Su-33 on Kuznetsov's deck and hangars is actually LESS than that of the MiG-29K.

    During the carrier trials, Sukhoi proved to the Soviet MAP that, thanks to the Su-33's more capable WCS, bigger weapons load and longer range, a carrier wing composed of Su-33's would be more effective than a 50% greater number of MiG-29K's.

    If the Su-33 was funded with the same upgrades as the new MiG-29K/KUB, the same would still be true.

    Ken
    Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast.
    Flankers (& others) website at :-
    http://flankers.co.uk/

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    8,085
    edit: you forgot Super Etendard (FR/AR), Breguet Alize (FR/IN), E-2 Hawkeye (US/FR), Hawker Sea Hawk (UK/IN) and Harriers (US/UK/SP/IT/TH/IN)

    Somehow the Sea Hawk came to mind, but I didn't realize the Indian Navy had used them. The E-2 makes sense and I don't know why I didn't think of it. The Super Etendard makes sense as well and given that I just finished a book on the Falklands War (yes, I know they didn't fly them off the carrier during the conflict) I'm shocked that one didn't come to mind either. As for the Alize, I had no idea the Indians used them. Harriers I didn't really count cause you can land one of them anywhere.

    As for the MiG-29K making a larger footprint on a carrier than an Su-33, I'm finding that hard to believe, but I'm no expert on either so perhaps it's true. Is it still true with the newer MiG-29K's or is this just a reference to the MiG-29K from the 1990's?
    Fox-4!

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Malmesbury UK
    Posts
    3,267
    Quote Originally Posted by PhantomII View Post
    [B]
    As for the MiG-29K making a larger footprint on a carrier than an Su-33, I'm finding that hard to believe,
    The folded wingspan on the Su-27K/Su-33 is 7.4m, the MiG-29K was 7.8m.

    I'm not sure what the new MiG-29K/KUB is..... ????

    The Su-33 was longer, but the folding probe and tailcone allowed it to use the Kuznetsov's elevators.

    I think the Su-33 also had a slower approach and landing speed than the MiG-29K - due to its canards and large double-slotted flaps.

    Ken
    Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast.
    Flankers (& others) website at :-
    http://flankers.co.uk/

  26. #116
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,502
    Quote Originally Posted by PhantomII View Post
    edit: you forgot Super Etendard (FR/AR), Breguet Alize (FR/IN), E-2 Hawkeye (US/FR), Hawker Sea Hawk (UK/IN) and Harriers (US/UK/SP/IT/TH/IN)

    Somehow the Sea Hawk came to mind, but I didn't realize the Indian Navy had used them. The E-2 makes sense and I don't know why I didn't think of it. The Super Etendard makes sense as well and given that I just finished a book on the Falklands War (yes, I know they didn't fly them off the carrier during the conflict) I'm shocked that one didn't come to mind either. As for the Alize, I had no idea the Indians used them. Harriers I didn't really count cause you can land one of them anywhere.
    Other examples: Tracker (US/AUS/AR/NL/CAN/BRA), Sea Venom (UK/AUS/FR), Gannet (UK/AUS). That's without counting helos and WWII era aircraft

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Flanker_man View Post
    That is a popular misconception.

    With its folding wings and tailplanes, plus the folding tailcone and nose pitot, the 'footprint' of the Su-33 on Kuznetsov's deck and hangars is actually LESS than that of the MiG-29K.

    During the carrier trials, Sukhoi proved to the Soviet MAP that, thanks to the Su-33's more capable WCS, bigger weapons load and longer range, a carrier wing composed of Su-33's would be more effective than a 50% greater number of MiG-29K's.

    If the Su-33 was funded with the same upgrades as the new MiG-29K/KUB, the same would still be true.

    Ken
    I am aware of that. But still find it hard to believe that you would stuff more Su-33s than MiG-29Ks into that limited space.

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    8,085
    Okay I get it...I guess the MiG-29 wouldn't be anything special by being used on more than one country's carriers. Still seems neat to me...especially nowadays when carrier aircraft outside of the U.S. Navy are rare.

    In any case, what about hangar space on the Kuznetsov? Wouldn't you be able to fit more MiG-29's under the flight deck (does the Kuznetsov have under deck hangars like U.S. carriers?) than you would Su-33's?

    I just feel like the MiG-29K is just a good fit for the Russian Navy. What is the current status of the carrier-based Su-25's? Su-25UTG's? Are they just trainers?
    Fox-4!

  29. #119
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,502
    Quote Originally Posted by PhantomII View Post
    Still seems neat to me...especially nowadays when carrier aircraft outside of the U.S. Navy are rare.
    That much is certain, many of the countries I listed no longer operate carriers at all. Times have no doubt changed

    In fact, it seems the Rafale M is the only other non-US naval fighter with decent hopes of achieving the same status (France & Brazil).

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Malmesbury UK
    Posts
    3,267
    Quote Originally Posted by PhantomII View Post
    In any case, what about hangar space on the Kuznetsov? Wouldn't you be able to fit more MiG-29's under the flight deck (does the Kuznetsov have under deck hangars like U.S. carriers?) than you would Su-33's?
    Did you not read my post above ???

    With its folding wings and tailplanes, plus the folding tailcone and nose pitot, the 'footprint' of the Su-33 on Kuznetsov's deck and hangars is actually LESS than that of the MiG-29K.

    Yes, Kuznetsov does have under deck hangars - served by two deck-edge lifts (elevators).

    Ken
    Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast.
    Flankers (& others) website at :-
    http://flankers.co.uk/

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES