| Author |
Message |
|
KarimAbdoun
|
Posted: May 06, 2004 - 11:22 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jan 30, 2004 - 07:47 PM
Posts: 509
Status: Offline
|
Hi all,
I was reading about the Indian Navy aquisition of an old Russian carrier in AFM and I stumbeled on a picture of an unmistakably MiG-29 with the letter k as its model:MiG-29K, it's a navalised MiG-29 with fwing-folding capability!
Then I remembered an article about the Russian Navy examined the possibilty of operating a MiG-29 on a carrier but the MiG wasn't aerodynamiclly able or something like that, so I was surprised when saw this. Again I saw this in Air International, what a job those Indians are gonna do. So the question is what is this "new" MiG-29?
What's its history? Can someone advice?
Does anybody have cockpit photos or something? |
_________________ The fighter is not what counts, it's the one who's flying it that matters!
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: May 19, 2013 - 8:04 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
 |
|
TomaTo
|
Posted: May 07, 2004 - 03:14 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Apr 15, 2004 - 11:26 AM
Posts: 28
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
|
I do think I read something that the MiG is fully carrier capable, but the Russians selected the Flanker to protect them instead.
Other than that, MiG-29 Ks shouldn't be any problems to export, should they?  |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
KarimAbdoun
|
Posted: May 07, 2004 - 09:32 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jan 30, 2004 - 07:47 PM
Posts: 509
Status: Offline
|
| Yeah, but my opinion is that they won't be capable as they are in the ground, the MiG-29 has a fuel problem this means it requires the carrier to be in a relatively close distance to let's say Pakistan, and will be indanger of F-16s and Mirages. |
_________________ The fighter is not what counts, it's the one who's flying it that matters!
|
|
|
|
 |
|
TomaTo
|
Posted: May 07, 2004 - 07:44 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Apr 15, 2004 - 11:26 AM
Posts: 28
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
|
| centerline drop tank, perhaps? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
KarimAbdoun
|
Posted: May 07, 2004 - 09:09 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jan 30, 2004 - 07:47 PM
Posts: 509
Status: Offline
|
| Still the MiG-29 has always had a fuel problem, check <a href="f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-683-highlight-mig29.html">MiG-29 vs F-16 Topic</a> |
_________________ The fighter is not what counts, it's the one who's flying it that matters!
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Phoenix
|
Posted: May 09, 2004 - 02:23 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Sep 11, 2003 - 12:25 PM
Posts: 155
Status: Offline
|
The MiG-29K has a lot more fuel than the earlier versions. It still might not be very much, but it did give it a range boost.
As for the whole Pakistan thing, the only part really worth worrying about are the Mirages, coz really Pakistan's vipers are all As and Bs and AFAIK, they're knida running low on spares. As for the Mirages, that's why they have the Su-30s, right?
Anyways, I'm stopping here on that topic. The relationship between the two countries seems to be heading for better times, so no point going on about this topic right now. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Lawman
|
Posted: May 11, 2004 - 08:49 PM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Nov 20, 2003 - 09:35 PM
Posts: 356
Status: Offline
|
It wasn't so much the aircraft as the physics of carrier air ops. When Russia built the Kuznetstov it was to be the midway point in a program to get a real blue water carrier fleet. First stage, the Kiev class of Helicopter Cruisers with VTOL aircraft. The next was a small fixed wing carrier the Kuznetstov which used a ski jump instead of steam catapults to get aircraft aloft. Had the funding existed there were plans to build a russian carrier similar in size and ability to our conventional Kittyhawk class of flattops.
--The problems inherent with the design of the Kuznetstov--
With no power assist for aircraft coming from the ship the planes must take off on there own power. Add to the fact that being Navy aircraft they have had a big increase in weight due to structural bracing and landing gear beefing. So now you have heavy planes making what are essentially short field take-offs. The only way they could get them aloft is to either cut there payload in half or drain fuel and tank up in the air. So they cant carry as much as far as the land based SU/MIG variants. Also the only tanker available was the Navalized Flanker using a buddy tanking system, and with such a low payload to off load several aircraft would be dedicated to this role, cutting down your strike package significantly.
Also the Mig itself began developing structural cracks along the LEX and wing roots due to the severe stress of carrier landings. This among the other elements listed above led to the axeing of the MIG-29K.
Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|