What's new

Indian Navy wants its only fighter aircraft to toughen up

Maybe china sabotaged the mig 29k deal...modi may Need to beg china for the J-15 just as he did for foreign investments

J-15 is the last thing, the Navy would want, Mig29 availability is around 75% while Su30MKI is around 54% by storing spares in surplus, this can be improved unto 60-70% better than that is not possible-

The availability of Mig29K is before you, and you can get the idea of J-15 availability rate by comparing It with Su30 on ground- and keep in mind that Naval platform has to be compact and spares stocking is limited due space-

A carrier group is as good as Its air wing- Navy doesn't want floating casinos here- Such luxury can't be afforded here-
 
.
The Rafale-M should be STOBAR capable but it will not be able to carry full potential payload, the issue faced by STOBAR launches birds.
I remember reading that the MiG29K can take off with a full payload from the longer position(LHS) but it would give very little margins for error.
But yes, on the whole CATOBAR is better.
 
.
I hope no IN Mig-29k crashed during the joint exercise with USN and JMSDF now. :enjoy:

As of now Mig29K has better record than J-15- :partay:

Fatal crash of Chinese J-15 carrier jet puts question mark over troubled programme
Mainland report confirms fighter pilot died after failure during test run of aircraft

Macau-based military expert Antony Wong Dong warned that the fatal accident might indicate that the J-15 was not of high enough standard for an aircraft carrier, which would be a major disappointment to the navy.

“As was with case with accidents during trial flights of the Su-27s in the 1980s, the reason behind the crash of the J-15 could either be a failure in the flight control system or a problem with production quality,” Wong said.

Some military observer suggested that the People’s Liberation Army might reconsider its commitment to the J-15, but Wong said he thought the reverse might be the case. “As there is no alternative in sight, I think the Chinese military

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...h-chinese-j-15-carrier-jet-puts-question-mark

Putin and Xi Jinping are good friends. After USD400 billion oil deal signed between China and Russia. Putin promised that China will be strategic and higher level partner than India. The Mig-29k will be properly treated specially for IN. :enjoy:

As we speak Iskander is being properly treated specially for China- ;)

Why Is Russia Aiming Missiles at China?
The placement of Iskander-M Brigades in Russia’s Eastern Military District reflects continued uneasiness about China.

By Guy Plopsky
July 12, 2017


In early June 2017, Russian media reported that yet another Ground Forces missile brigade received the dreaded road-mobile 9K720 Iskander-M missile system (known in Russian military parlance as an “operational-tactical missile system,” or OTRK in short). The brigade in question is the 29th Army’s newly established 3rd Missile Brigade, based in Russia’s colossal Eastern Military District (MD). Formed in December 2016, this brigade was initially armed with the aging 9K79-1 Tochka-U tactical ballistic missile system, and became the Eastern MD’s fourth missile brigade to be re-equipped with the Iskander-M as part of the Russian Defense Ministry’s plan to phase out all Tochka-Us by 2020. The district’s three other brigades — the 107th, 103rd and 20th — received their Iskander-M OTRKs in 2013, 2015, and 2016, respectively. As a result, there are presently more Iskander-M brigades in the Eastern MD than any other district; Russia’s other three military districts (Central, Southern, and Western) currently house two Iskander-M brigades each. What, then, is the purpose of these four brigades?

Whereas the task of Iskander-M OTRKs being deployed in Russia’s Western MD is to hold U.S. and allied forces in the Baltics and Poland at risk, the systems stationed in the Eastern MD appear to primarily serve a different purpose: strengthening both Russia’s conventional and nuclear deterrence against China. Indeed, while an Iskander-M system stationed in Russia’s Kaliningrad Oblast allows Russia to target a wide range of NATO military assets, including the Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defense (BMD) system in Poland, an Iskander-M stationed in Russia’s Far East has very limited ability to threaten U.S. forces deployed in the region.

According to Russian sources, the Iskander-M’s 9M723-series of quasi-ballistic missiles have a range of 400-500 kilometers (250-310 miles), while the 9M728/R-500 ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) — frequently erroneously referred to as the Iskander-K — possesses a range of under 500 km. This largely restricts the Iskander-M to targets on Japan’s Hokkaido Prefecture, leaving key U.S. military assets, including the AN/TPY-2 BMD radar in Japan’s Amoroi Prefecture and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in South Korea, beyond the system’s reach. A possible exception is Misawa Air Base in the east of Aomori Prefecture; however, targeting this facility would require deploying the Iskander-M to the southern tip of Kunashir Island in the Kurils.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.
In this regard, the Kremlin no longer permanently bases missile brigades within close proximity to Japan as it did during the Cold War (the USSR maintained a missile brigade on the southern section of Sakhalin Island in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk). The two Iskander-M brigades in Russia’s Far East — the 107th and 20th — are based in the Jewish Autonomous Oblast and Primorsky Krai, respectively. Both of these regions border China. The latter region also encompasses Russia’s 17 km (10.5 mile) land border with North Korea, suggesting that the primary purpose of the two far eastern brigades is containing China and responding to contingencies on the Korean Peninsula.

At the same time, the basing locations of the Eastern MD’s other two Iskander-M brigades likewise point to a focus on China; the 103rd Missile Brigade is stationed in Russia’s Republic of Buryatia, which borders Mongolia, while the newly formed 3rd Missile Brigade is based in Gorny (once known as Chita-46) in Zabaykalsky Krai — a region that borders China’s Inner Mongolia Province.

thediplomat.com-gf_missilebrigades01-790x437.jpg

Russian Ground Forces missile brigades that have been/ will be equipped with the 9K720 Iskander-M OTRK. Courtesy of Dr. Roger N. McDermott.

Though the Kremlin has been careful not to voice long-term concerns about China, perhaps the most telling examples of Moscow’s continued uneasiness regarding the growing military might of its neighbour have been large-scale Russian military exercises held in the Eastern MD. As Dr. Roger N. McDermott, senior fellow in Eurasian military studies at the Jamestown Foundation, concludes in his analysis on the large-scale Vostok (“East”) 2014 exercise involving some 100,000 personnel, “Vostok 2014, much like its earlier incarnation in 2010, contains strong evidence that the Russian General Staff continues to consider China a potential threat to Russia.” Given the persisting concern, basing Iskander-M OTRKs in regions bordering China’s Northern Theater Command is a logical move from Russia’s perspective. Indeed, the system’s ability to deliver a wide range of cluster munitions makes it particularly suitable for use against People’s Liberation Army (PLA) armor and infantry in the event of an armed confrontation.

Furthermore, the Iskander-M is also able to deliver various non-cluster warheads with a relatively high degree of accuracy — a capability which Russian officials have repeatedly praised the system for, including during military exercises in the Eastern MD. Reporting to Russian President Vladimir Putin on the launch of Iskander-M quasi-ballistic missiles during Vostok 2014 (which took place from a test range in the Jewish Autonomous Oblast), Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced that “Iskander-M units hit two targets at a distance of 200 km (124 miles),” adding that “[t]he combat crews demonstrated outstanding practical skills, including precision in hitting targets.” Similarly, in August 2016, Russia’s Defense Ministry boasted that a missile launched by an Iskander-M unit from the Jewish Autonomous Oblast during a military exercise scored a “direct hit” against a simulated target some 300 km (186 miles) away in the neighboring Amur Oblast. The participation of the Iskander-M and other advanced strike systems in these and other military exercises across Russia appears to reflect Moscow’s understanding that precision-strike capabilities must play a greater role in future military operations against both non-state and state actors, including China, which has been actively bolstering its own precision-strike capabilities.

At the same time, the Iskander-M’s ability to deliver nuclear payloads reinforces Russia’s nuclear “de-escalation” doctrine, which aims to deter an adversary from engaging in hostilities by threatening to retaliate with a limited nuclear strike. Given Russia’s eroding conventional military superiority over the PLA, nuclear weapons, particularly non-strategic systems such as the Iskander-M, are likely to play an increasingly important role in deterring China. Indeed, as Dr. Alexei Arbatov and Major General Vladimir Dvorkin (Ret.) observe in a 2013 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report, “it may be assumed that Russia’s strategic nuclear forces, as well as some of its non-strategic nuclear weapons, do serve a mission of containing China.”

Commenting on Russia’s 2010 Military Doctrine, which states that “[n]uclear weapons will remain an important factor for preventing the outbreak of nuclear military conflicts and military conflicts involving the use of conventional means of attack (a large-scale war or regional war),” the two experts conclude that “n terms of military logic, to mention a regional war in such a context can only suggest a hypothetical conflict with China.” Russia’s 2014 Military Doctrine reiterates the 2010’s statement on the use of nuclear weapons, indicating Moscow continues to adhere to this line of thought.

All of the above notwithstanding, Iskander-M brigades in Russia’s Eastern MD merit close watch by the United States given the possibility of missiles with longer ranges being fielded with this OTRK that would enable it to hold U.S. assets in the region at risk. Such missiles would also fail to comply with the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which bans ballistic missiles and GLCMs with ranges of 500-5,500 km (310-3,417 miles). In fact, Russian officials have previously stated that the range of the Iskander-M’s R-500 GLCM could be extended if deemed necessary. Moreover, it is possible that an upgraded GLCM for the Iskander-M is already under development or operational. However, it should be noted that even if such a GLCM does exist, it remains unclear whether its range exceeds 500 km and whether it is affiliated with a new Russian GLCM that allegedly violates the INF Treaty (dubbed SSC-8 by NATO).

Recent developments further support the possibility of Russia extending the Iskander-M’s reach (if it hasn’t done so already). In April 2017, the director general of Russia’s Rostec Corporation, Sergey Chemezov, noted that “a modernized variant of the Iskander-M OTRK will be presented after 2020.” Though Chemezov did not provide additional details, a meeting held between the head of Russia’s Missile and Artillery Troops and representatives of Russia’s military industry a month later shed further light on the potential improvements to the system. According to Russia’s Defense Ministry, the meeting discussed the question of developing new missiles with improved range and accuracy for the Iskander-M. Should Moscow introduce new longer range missiles for the Iskander-M (and/or for a new road-mobile missile system) in its Eastern MD, they will strengthen Russia’s position vis-a-vis China, which fields both ballistic missiles and GLCMs with greater ranges than those currently in use with the Iskander-M. However, the deployment of such missiles will also have serious implications for regional stability.

Guy Plopsky holds an MA in International Affairs and Strategic Studies from Tamkang University, Taiwan. He specializes in air power, Russian military affairs and Asia-Pacific security. You can follow him on Twitter.

http://thediplomat.com/2017/07/why-is-russia-aiming-missiles-at-china/

The timing is interesting coinciding with recent developments on Indo-China border- :enjoy:


Why IN don't replace Carrier born fleet with Rafale-M and make Migs secondary options for ACC.

This exactly what Navy is planning, 57 NMRCA, F-18SH and Rafale-M are contenders here- Rafale-M is proffered choice-

Selective posting. How many MKI, Mig-27 , Jaguar, Mig-21 has IAF crashed? :lol:

It was you who singled out Mig29K which till now has not crashed-
 
.
I remember reading that the MiG29K can take off with a full payload from the longer position(LHS) but it would give very little margins for error.
But yes, on the whole CATOBAR is better.
interesting..
I "remember" that F-18s with heavier weapon payloads fly with less than full fuel load from even USN CATOBAR Carriers. It must be a great feat for Russians to achieve full payloads for Mig-29Ks, you must have a "fantastical" source...
 
.
interesting..
I "remember" that F-18s with heavier weapon payloads fly with less than full fuel load from even USN CATOBAR Carriers. It must be a great feat for Russians to achieve full payloads for Mig-29Ks, you must have a "fantastical" source...
Or you must be total dumbass.
Trials included ops with different loads and the MiG-29K took off with full load from the front take off position which is roughly 100m front the tip of ski-jump.
https://battlemachines.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/mig-29k-the-naval-fulcrum/
 
. . . .
And this made an idiot like you happy..

Tell me with such a large deck of mahan baharat's mahan carrier.. can it actually even land a Mig-29 with full weapon payload.. not to talk about any fuel load.. you damn hindian trolls are good at "remembering" to produce arguments out of your ***..
 
.
J-15 is the last thing, the Navy would want, Mig29 availability is around 75% while Su30MKI is around 54% by storing spares in surplus, this can be improved unto 60-70% better than that is not possible-

The availability of Mig29K is before you, and you can get the idea of J-15 availability rate by comparing It with Su30 on ground- and keep in mind that Naval platform has to be compact and spares stocking is limited due space-

A carrier group is as good as Its air wing- Navy doesn't want floating casinos here- Such luxury can't be afforded here-

India auditor general said mig29k only 30% operational readiness.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom