MiG-29K/KUB operations [VIDEO]

[Abingdonboy]

could this be a silly question by me, if mig 29 k is much potent for naval fighter jet,then why chinese didnt reverse engineered it for its carrier operations??

The Chinese have no histroy of carrier aviation and went after the heavy weight Su-33's blueprints a) because they were to hand (Ukrane had them, MiG-29K was undevloped at that time) and b) this is what Russia had been using for its carriers in the past.

Whilst the IN who has extensive carrier knowledge opted for the medium weight MiG-29K and funded its development, the Russian Navy has now followed the IN's lead and have ditched the Su-33 for their carriers and are going for the MiG-29K.

A heavy weight fighter on a medium size carrier operted by a navy with no carrier expereince and with little external aid is going to see a lot of tragedies for the PLA(N) before they get it right. They are still at the VERY early stages of operationalising the Liáoníng, it will be at least another 3-4 years before they are anywhere near ready to deploy with it and that is on the optimisitic side. The Chinese are fighting two fires simultaneously- not only do they have zero carrier experience but because they stole the designs for the J-15 (Su-33) they will have no help from the OEM so it is a very very steep curve for them to climb.

The IN on the other hand has decades of expereince in this arena and the benefit of being able to lean on experts from Russia and the US- the end result being that today the INS Vikramditya is 100% operational.

View attachment 286485
It is very exciting to see the MiG-29 line continue to evolve and thrive.

@Abingdonboy I might sound stupid but I want to know what type of actual payload and range envelopes these machines can achieve when working off of ski-jump equipped aircraft carriers and is it any different from the catapult ones???
(I know that we haven't switched to catapults and ergo the doubt).

I don't know the exact differential in payload capabilties of a ramp launch vs a catapult launch but there will be quite a sizeable one. When using a ramp the fighter is using nothing but its own power to launch and that too from a very short runway, a catapult offsets this greatly with addtional kinetic energy imparted by a catapult. As a result it is a no-brainer that fighters taking off from CATOBAR carriers will do so whilst being heavier than those on STOBAR carriers.


That said, the issues with payload can be offset somewhat by taking off with minimal fuel but "fat" on ordinance and being filled up by a "buddy" in the air via IFR:

On the other hand, catapult launches allow for taking off with "fat" payloads and heavy with fuel- win-win.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

View attachment 286485
It is very exciting to see the MiG-29 line continue to evolve and thrive.

@Abingdonboy I might sound stupid but I want to know what type of actual payload and range envelopes these machines can achieve when working off of ski-jump equipped aircraft carriers and is it any different from the catapult ones???
(I know that we haven't switched to catapults and ergo the doubt).

STOBAR aircraft have to operate with lower AUW than CATOBAR aircraft. This then translates into lower Payload (Fuel and/or Armament) for the STOBAR aircraft such as the MiGs operating from INS Vikramaditya. Since Fuel upload is critical, then the Armament loadout takes the hit.
Of there is a 'work-around' that can be used to minimise this handicap. That is by the use of "buddy-reuelling" where the fuel upload is reduced, the aircraft is launched; then when in the air, its refuelled in the air by a buddy aircraft to make up the load. The IN's MiGs are equipped for this role, just as they can be be IFR from Midas refuellers.
Interestingly even CATOBAR aircraft of the USN used "buddy-refuelling" in air ops off Viet Nam to maximise loadout and endurance.

 

[PARIKRAMA]

STOBAR aircraft have to operate with lower AUW than CATOBAR aircraft. This then translates into lower Payload (Fuel and/or Armament) for the STOBAR aircraft such as the MiGs operating from INS Vikramaditya. Since Fuel upload is critical, then the Armament loadout takes the hit.
Of there is a 'work-around' that can be used to minimise this handicap. That is by the use of "buddy-reuelling" where the fuel upload is reduced, the aircraft is launched; then when in the air, its refuelled in the air by a buddy aircraft to make up the load. The IN's MiGs are equipped for this role, just as they can be be IFR from Midas refuellers.
Interestingly even CATOBAR aircraft of the USN used "buddy-refuelling" in air ops off Viet Nam to maximise loadout and endurance.

This is the same strategy of buddy refuelling and aerial tankers refuelling right after take off which was investigated in great details by USN for the F18 usage. Sadly, this methodology incurred heavy cost as tankers are needed to be flown for refuelling or dedicated other buddy refuellers are used time and again. All in order to carry ordinances. In case the ordinance is reduced for cost saving measures, the sorties increased even more as effective strike success for individual sortie came down due less firepower it carried.

This was all mentioned in the cost of war analysis put in front of Senate.

 

[#hydra#]

could this be a silly question by me, if mig 29 k is much potent for naval fighter jet,then why chinese didnt reverse engineered it for its carrier operations??

The same reason why Chinese don't using jf17... Not matches for Chinese operational requirements.

 

[Abingdonboy]

This is the same strategy of buddy refuelling and aerial tankers refuelling right after take off which was investigated in great details by USN for the F18 usage. Sadly, this methodology incurred heavy cost as tankers are needed to be flown for refuelling or dedicated other buddy refuellers are used time and again. All in order to carry ordinances. In case the ordinance is reduced for cost saving measures, the sorties increased even more as effective strike success for individual sortie came down due less firepower it carried.

This was all mentioned in the cost of war analysis put in front of Senate.

Another huge issues when it comes to flying "fat" with ordinance is being able to land on the carrier when your mission is complete. Arrestor wires have a finite stopping capacity and a serious issue the USN faced was how much unspent ordinance it was having to "dump" before returning to the carrier. For a large part of operations above Iraq the USN was tasked with CAS but often their birds would be on station but unutilised and thus returning to base with all their ordinance. And whilst fighters can dump fuel to lighten up for the arrestor cables, all that ordinance is still going to be too much to stop and uou can imagine the huge wastage incurred as a result- PGMs cost millions and dumping them unused into the water is tragic.

 

[dadeechi]

Awesome shares my friend.

Seems like the early procurement of MIG-29Ks and the training at SBTF has immensely helped the cause.

 

[desimorty]

The Chinese are fighting two fires simultaneously- not only do they have zero carrier experience but because they stole the designs for the J-15 (Su-33) they will have no help from the OEM so it is a very very steep curve for them to climb.


Source: MiG-29K/KUB operations [VIDEO] | Page 2

I don't think they stole the Su-33 design. Early last decade, the got the help from the designers, IE former USSR Ukraine.
No way, they could have done it, Flanker is NOT their design.
Whats to be noted, that the PLAAF, pretty much have 3 different flankers.
1-air superiority with basic performance.
2-su-33 with landing gear!
3-J-11 so on with heavy landing gear in line with MKI.

That would mean, China is producing 3 types of landing gears for these aircraft!
Naval, version sure, but it seems like their was a lot short sightedness on part of the PLA. Could have ended up with Su-30MKC.

 

[kaykay]

View attachment 286485
It is very exciting to see the MiG-29 line continue to evolve and thrive.

@Abingdonboy I might sound stupid but I want to know what type of actual payload and range envelopes these machines can achieve when working off of ski-jump equipped aircraft carriers and is it any different from the catapult ones???
(I know that we haven't switched to catapults and ergo the doubt).

So far I have seen best Mig-29Ks payload on board Ins Viki( pic was from trails in Russia) with
2* R-73s
2*Kh-35 AshM
2* smaller external fuel tank( probably 750-800 ltr)
1* big centreline external fuel tank( probably 1200-1350 ltr).

https://battlemachines.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/mig-29k-9.jpg?w=912&h=684

More pics can be found here...( in Russian though).
Aviation EXplorer: Испытания АВ «Викрамадитья» идут хорошо

@Capt.Popeye @PARIKRAMA @Abingdonboy

 

[Parul]

I hope this video isn't off-topic:

 

[jaiind]

The same reason why Chinese don't using jf17... Not matches for Chinese operational requirements.

jf 17 is a single engine fighter with superiror DSI tech,and its no match against any other fighter jet

 

[mkb95]

most beautiful footage of carrier mig29 tacking off with full afterburner

 

[Levina]

I don't know the exact differential in payload capabilties of a ramp launch vs a catapult launch but there will be quite a sizeable one. When using a ramp the fighter is using nothing but its own power to launch and that too from a very short runway, a catapult offsets this greatly with addtional kinetic energy imparted by a catapult. As a result it is a no-brainer that fighters taking off from CATOBAR carriers will do so whilst being heavier than those on STOBAR carriers.


That said, the issues with payload can be offset somewhat by taking off with minimal fuel but "fat" on ordinance and being filled up by a "buddy" in the air via IFR:

Thanks. I came to know that Mig-29k might have never tried Catapult assisted take offs.
I found 2 articles which describe the reasons....
" Soviet Navy never had a catapult-equipped carrier. There's a bunch of reasons for that, both technical and "political". On the one hand, being tasked to develop steam catapults, the Proletarsky Factory coped with that mission, mildly speaking, incompletely. The plant faced problems related with cylinders' bore, their sealing and lubrication systems, catapult heating in wintertime etc. After long drudgery only one pilot sample of catapult was mounted on ground-based aircraft training system NITKA which was constructed in Novo-Fedorovka, Crimea. The construction of NITKA simulator was kicked off in 1977. It was classified as special importance object, and work progress was under personal control of Navy Commander-in-Chief. Nevertheless, that catapult (then called "speedup device") had never shot an airplane …

Instead of this, the attention was refocused on ski-ramp takeoff which was found more preferable (and above all, incomparably simpler and cheaper) alternative to catapult. An order was made to shut down all development works on catapult. There are different opinions about the reasons of such controversial decision. In particular, they talked of cost cutting, time lag in development of full-fledged catapult, and even intentional desire to prevent reassignment of financial flow in defense expenditure structure oriented on land forces if classic aircraft carriers would appear.

Deck-based fighter MiG-29K. sambzik.narod.ru

By all appearances, statement of directors of Sukhoi and Mikoyan design bureaus also played.
At first glance, a ski-ramp really has a huge number of advantages. It is inexpensive and doesn't need steam-generating plant, maintenance and repairs. Finally, it saves effective capacities and weight, which affects a carrier's displacement and cost."



From another article...
" The USN used steam catapults to launch its jets from its carriers and arrestor wires to retrieve them on deck. The Soviet designers didn’t share the same ideology. They thought that steam catapults were maintenance intensive, and the aircraft had to bear far more stresses due the catapult assisted launch. This added a weight penalty and reduced overall airframe life. The other option, ie use of ski jump seemed more attractive to them. The aircraft would launch under its own power, thus no extra stresses were to be considered, except those of the landing. This also allowed them to reduce the weight of the jets and increase their performance. This however had a disadvantage, only jets with high TWR (Thrust to Weight Ratio) could operate from the carrier, hence the selection of Su-27K and MiG-29K is justified. Both of these jets sport TWR more than unity and were the top line of jet fighters of that era. The mode of recovery was however not changed, it was supposed to be arrested recovery using arrestor cables which would be connected to weights, thus absorbing the energy from the landing jet and slowing it down. Thus to test the feasibility of such a design, a facility named Nitka was built, in Crimea."



About the range.....

Internal fuel was increased from 3,340 kg to 4,560 kg, to give a combat radius of 850 km (531 mi). The combat radius can be increased to 1,300 kilometers with 3 underwing fuel drop tanks.