What's new

Indian Navy News & Discussions

thanx gog...but wat i really wanted was fighter to fighter comparison..one on one ..whicj is the better one....:rolleyes:

The simple fact that Russian navy are replacing the old Su 33 with new Mig 29Ks should tell you that the Migs are better, because Russia wouldn't field less capable fighters right?

Besides that they are much more improved versions of the Mig 29s, PESA radar, multi role capable, 4 times lower RCS, increased fuel and more weapon stations. But one of their main advantages is less weight. The Su 33, like all Flankers are very heavy and especially on STOBAR carriers this is a problem at take off. AFAIK they had to take off will limited fuel only, when they carry a usefuel weapon load and must be re-fueld in air again. Mig 29Ks instead have should take off with a good weapon load and still enough range.

Also IN wanted naval versions of Su 30 MKI for our carriers, but they are simply too big for medium class carriers like Gorshkov, or Vikrant.

Compared to older Su33, the Migs should have clear advantages, but more interesting to me are, how good Chinas new J-15s (illegal copys of Su 33s with canards) will be. I guess they will have a lower RCS and till their first carriers will be ready, it should have AESA radars too.
Although Gorshkov and Vikrant are only for the air defense and maritime patrol role around our costal lines, I can't understand why IN didn't waited till the Zhuk AESA is ready, also why they didn't chose TVC, which should give advantages at the take off.
Not sure how good our Mig 29Ks will be against J-15 with more radar range, reduced RCS, more and heavier weapons... :undecided:

Not a real comparison, but maybe it still helps.
 
Besides that they are much more improved versions of the Mig 29s, PESA radar, multi role capable, 4 times lower RCS

PESA radar - You must be referring to Bars-29 offered with M2/mrca , Mig29K only have Zhuk-M (which is MSA)

4 times lower RCS - This is just speculation , 4 times what - in dB or m2 . With Russians assume it with pinch of salt

Karthic - I think your query has been answered well .
 
PESA radar - You must be referring to Bars-29 offered with M2/mrca , Mig29K only have Zhuk-M (which is MSA)

4 times lower RCS - This is just speculation , 4 times what - in dB or m2 . With Russians assume it with pinch of salt

Karthic - I think your query has been answered well .

Correct, my mistake about the radar, the RCS reduction instead was an official figure and was stated in a press release by Mikoyan as far as I know.
 
Correct, my mistake about the radar, the RCS reduction instead was an official figure and was stated in a press release by Mikoyan as far as I know.

no i believe the RCS FIGURES ARE TRUE ..did you guys notice the SAW -TOOTH edges on the radome of the mig-29k ...the russians are finally serious about RCS
 
guys any news or specs about iac2, i heard sum rumors about the queen Elizabeth class being sold to India ..........

is it true ????
 
Is their any difference b/w nuclear powered carrier and diesel powered carrier ?? apart from range cause m read that both have almost same range
 
no i believe the RCS FIGURES ARE TRUE ..did you guys notice the SAW -TOOTH edges on the radome of the mig-29k ...the russians are finally serious about RCS

I also think they are true, and against Flanker size fighters that will be an advantage, against smaller fighters, or Eurocanards it's an disadvantage.
No I didn't noticed that, can you provide some pics?

Is their any difference b/w nuclear powered carrier and diesel powered carrier ?? apart from range cause m read that both have almost same range

Diesel propulsion needs fuel which limits the range, nuclear propulsion not. The only thing that limits the nuclear propelled carrier are their crew which needs food, water and other logistical things, as well as the range of their carrier fleet (destroyers, frigats, tankers...), because these will have normal propulsion only.
 
I also think they are true, and against Flanker size fighters that will be an advantage, against smaller fighters, or Eurocanards it's an disadvantage.
No I didn't noticed that, can you provide some pics?

here they are sancho


see near the anti reflective dark paint near the nose ,u can notice 3 triangle shapes
:cheers:
 
Navy to commission two fast attack craft this month

New Delhi, Jun 13 (PTI) To provide more teeth to its coastal security and surveillance capabilities, the Navy will induct two more water jet propelled Fast Attack Craft (FACs) in Visakhapatnam by this month-end.

The two FACs, built by Kolkata-based Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers (GRSE), will be based in the eastern coast to facilitate Navy to carry out patrols and intercept rogue ships, Navy officers said here today.

Named INS Cankaso and INS Kondul, two island territories of India, these would be the fifth and sixth FACs under the Car Nicobar class of craft that India began building in 2007.

The Navy has already inducted four FACs under this class -- Car Nicobar, Chetlat, Korah Divh and Cheriyam -- last year as part of the fast-track process following the Mumbai terror attacks, when Pakistani terrorists used a boat to reach the coast of the metropolis.

fullstory
 
Does anyone know if the ICG has the intention of increasing in size, decreasing or remaining the same, because I read an article that said that the ICG was considering downsizing.
 
here they are sancho

see near the anti reflective dark paint near the nose ,u can notice 3 triangle shapes
:cheers:

Hi Haanzo, strange, saw that pic several times but didn't noticed that.
You can see it in these pics even better:




It's similar to the saw tooth design on Rafale, or the F117, but these had it all over the airframe. Did you found these on other places of the Mig 29K too (I didn't), or is it just a feature for the frontal RCS?
 
^^^ just to reduce the frontal RCS ...mig-29ks are interceptors first then they are strike aircraft ...so frontal RCS is the name of the game here :)
 
^^^^
Guys can u please explain to me how that saw tooth reduces the RCS..?:what:
 
^^^^
Guys can u please explain to me how that saw tooth reduces the RCS..?:what:

Found this article bout stealth features of F 117. hope solves your query... Don curse if it doesn... Thanx...


Stealth techniques today concentrate upon the reduction of the radar cross section and infrared emissions of an airframe, as these parameters are critical to the performance of radar and infrared fire control and guidance systems.

How this is achieved becomes more evident upon closer examination of a specific design.


The unique geometry of the F-117A reflects the state of the art in RCS modelling techniques in the late 1970s, in stark contrast to the more refined B-2A geometry. The faceting technique derives from the use of the method of geometrical optics (see [1] page 114) which essentially says that an impinging ray (beam) is reflected at an angle equal to the incident angle relative to the normal to the reflecting surface (ie shine a torch beam at a mirror and see the effect). For this to be true though the wavelength must be much smaller than the dimensions of the reflecting flat surface and hence it is clear that the F-117A is designed to defeat high to mid band microwave radars.

By breaking the area of the airframe into flat facets, the designers sought to reflect impinging radar beams away from the radar. This is also the reason why the external geometry has no curved edges. Straight edges reflect principally in directions given by the above rule, therefore by arranging all areas to be flat and all edges to be straight, the designers could ensure that most impinging microwave energy is reflected away from the aircraft at angles which are determined by the instantaneous orientation of the airframe relative to the searching radar. As the frontal RCS is of greatest importance tactically, the edges and surfaces of the airframe about the frontal aspect are all arranged at shallow angles with respect to an impinging wave.

The result is not only a weak radar return but also a continuously scintillating one, scintillation will cause problems in many target tracking systems. In this fashion by clever shaping the RCS of the airframe was dramatically decreased. This alone was however inadequate as other detail contributors to the aircraft's RCS would have dominated the return. Hence the cockpit canopy windows were coated with an electrically conductive layer and the inlets were covered by a fine mesh grill, with holes smaller than the wavelength of the victim radars. Potentially good reflectors such as the engine fan faces and cockpit interior are thus hidden away.

Electrical discontinuities associated with panel edges and control surfaces at angles close to normal to frontal aspect beams could also make a measurable contribution to frontal RCS, therefore the canopy edges, weapon bay, undercarriage doors and FLIR bay have serrated edges. The angles used in the detail features are again shallow with respect to frontal aspect beams.

Shaping has thus been the principal RCS reduction technique used in the F-117A design. In addition, radar absorbent materials were used for some panels and radar absorbent coating over the area of the aircraft. The RCS of the aircraft has been estimated in the range of 0.001-0.01 square metres, which is incidently between 1% to 10 % of the RCS of a typical chicken [1] (subsequently released information indicates it to be closer to 0.001-0.0001 m2).

The aerodynamic penalties incurred by airframe shaping to minimise RCS have been considerable. Sharp edges and flat surfaces create vortices and thus severely disturb laminar flow causing parasitic drag. The large sweepback angle and low aspect ratio results in a shallower lift-curve slope which forces a higher nose attitude in landing configuration, this is confirmed by the high position of the canopy which in turn incurs an additional drag penalty. Another consequence of this effect is limited lift on takeoff requiring taller undercarriage to facilitate the required AoA on rotation. Highly swept wings are also poor performers at low speed, producing considerable lift induced drag, the F-117A will almost certainly have a narrow range of optimal high subsonic operating speeds where the parasitic and lift induced drag terms appropriately balance.
 
^^^ just to reduce the frontal RCS ...mig-29ks are interceptors first then they are strike aircraft ...so frontal RCS is the name of the game here :)

Mh, but the fighters don't engage all the time front to front, so it would make sense to use it for the all around RCS. But as we also saw at the Pak Fa prototype, Russia seems to concentrate on frontal mainly and not on all aspect stealth.

^^^^
Guys can u please explain to me how that saw tooth reduces the RCS..?:what:

The idea is that radar waves will be scattered to different directions and not reflected back, that was the idea behind the F117 stealth shaping too.

This should explain it too:




Here you can see it on these sawtooth on Rafales canards, fuselage, and wings:



 

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom