J15 vs MIG29k, Naval Tejas

[tanlixiang28776]

from what i found:3.mig-29 k has a better power-to-thrust ratio 0.97 v/s 0.83 of j-15

Hmmm.

The J 15 production models have two WS 10A each with 262 kilotons thrust after burning

I'm using a J 11B as they are very similar

23,926 kg loaded weight

so around 91.32 kg for every kiloton of thrust

The Mig 29K has two RD 33MK producing 176.6 kilotons thrust after burning

18,550 kg loaded weight

105.03 kg for every kiloton of thrust.

So going by that the J 15 would actually have a higher thrust to weight Ratio

 

[Vibs]

I don't see any logic behind comparing three different class of fighter. The only similarities between them is they can be launched from Carrier. NLCA is Light class, MiG29K is medium class while Su33 (Aka J15) is heavy class.

In my view Su33 can rip apart MiG29 or NLCA. NLCA or MiG29 can be better only iff (if and only if) they are half to one generation ahead of Su33 or they are very very lucky.. Su27 platform has huge nose, it can carry massive radar, It can carry diverse weapon....

Because J15 is chinese rip off of ukranian su33 doesn't mean its bad... Its something one must fear of... According to me the 3 most feared Aircraft platform is ...
1. F22 Raptor
2. F15 and Su27.... (I give them equal importance..)

I think it's important to assess the suitability of carrier launched operations of the 3 variants. Su 33 is a very good plane but even the Russians chose MiG29k for their carriers. Has to be a reason for that. Something like strengthening of the framework and additional thrust/shorter runway requirements to start with. Combat capabilities come later (and yes su 33 J-15 seem superior but Tejas Mk2 specs does come close).

 

[The_Sidewinder]

Please dont post in this thread. I m creating a new thread with better purpose. Mod please delete this thread.

 

[Black Widow]

I think it's important to assess the suitability of carrier launched operations of the 3 variants. Su 33 is a very good plane but even the Russians chose MiG29k for their carriers. Has to be a reason for that. Something like strengthening of the framework and additional thrust/shorter runway requirements to start with. Combat capabilities come later (and yes su 33 J-15 seem superior but Tejas Mk2 specs does come close).

Even I had the same doubt, I discussed with russian and American members (ptd and gambit) and I came across that it was not inferiority of Su33 that stop it to ride Kujastanov but It was cost factor.

Russia have lesser Aircraft carrier (Infact they use their carrier as battlecruiser), India was not interested in Su33. They don't want it to sell to China (coz of the Su27 betrayal). Looking into this matter they thought to close the production line of Su33... It was not good for fragile Russian economy to invest on Su33 for such small requirement.


Go by my words Flankers are deadly (and costly as well ). These MRCA can not match them... They have better range, they can have better and bigger radar.. they can carry many weapons...

 

[Vibs]

Even I had the same doubt, I discussed with russian and American members (ptd and gambit) and I came across that it was not inferiority of Su33 that stop it to ride Kujastanov but It was cost factor.

Russia have lesser Aircraft carrier (Infact they use their carrier as battlecruiser), India was not interested in Su33. They don't want it to sell to China (coz of the Su27 betrayal). Looking into this matter they thought to close the production line of Su33... It was not good for fragile Russian economy to invest on Su33 for such small requirement.


Go by my words Flankers are deadly (and costly as well ). These MRCA can not match them... They have better range, they can have better and bigger radar.. they can carry many weapons...

Ok..thnks for the clarification. Guess it has something to do with VTOL and STOVL configrations. Good point about the economic factor of the Su 33. I'm sure the Chinese would've somehow reduced the cost factor of the J-15. Besides there were reports of Russians looking to develop the Naval version of the FGFA to counter future F-35 Lightning deployments in NATO carriers. So they might be diverting funds for carrier based aircraft projects there.

BTW off topic technically F-35's are MRCA's and I'm sure they are better than the current range of flankers.

 

[aimarraul]

Su 33 is a very good plane but even the Russians chose MiG29k for their carriers. Has to be a reason for that.

su33 production line had been shut down for many years,it will cost russian lots of $ to upgrade the outdated version and restart the production line

 

[Vibs]

su33 production line had been shut down for many years,it will cost russian lots of $ to upgrade the outdated version and restart the production line

Thanks.Black widow clarified the post as well. Read reply on post #35.

 

[Black Widow]

Ok..thnks for the clarification. Guess it has something to do with VTOL and STOVL configrations. Good point about the economic factor of the Su 33. I'm sure the Chinese would've somehow reduced the cost factor of the J-15. Besides there were reports of Russians looking to develop the Naval version of the FGFA to counter future F-35 Lightning deployments in NATO carriers. So they might be diverting funds for carrier based aircraft projects there.

BTW off topic technically F-35's are MRCA's and I'm sure they are better than the current range of flankers.

Your welcome, We all learn from each other... Its Mutual... Naval FGFA will be nightmare for others.. I always wanted to see Naval F22. My bad luck that project was closed... @ cost reduction : yes we know that chinese products are cheaper and sometime inferior.. But I can;t claim anything in regard of J15... Secondly China is rapidly developing country, So I think they can afford some costly affairs as well... By copying/cheating/spying russian and American they have saved too much money...

I agree with your second point, since F35 is a generation ahead of Flankers, I think (personal opinion) it will be better than Su33 (J15)..

If you can spend some time here is good reading, Its an old article... (I doubt its authenticity though....)

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Maritime-Flanker-D.html

 

[kingdurgaking]

I think it's important to assess the suitability of carrier launched operations of the 3 variants. Su 33 is a very good plane but even the Russians chose MiG29k for their carriers. Has to be a reason for that. Something like strengthening of the framework and additional thrust/shorter runway requirements to start with. Combat capabilities come later (and yes su 33 J-15 seem superior but Tejas Mk2 specs does come close).

The reason Russia went for choosing Mig29K is because.. India does not have a carrier with a good displacement to carry the heavy Su's.. If IN went for Su's ultimately it has to sacrifice with lesser planes on board... which is a not wise decision ... One can argue same Su can carry more than for Mig true... but in war more payload is not the option first.. it is the strategy with right load that matters unlike Air force.. if you have more planes on board you can plan more strategies.. so India went for Migs ... India funded the project and Russia used it... as the cost reduces... While Naval Tejas will be there for air superiority ... Mig 29K will be employed for striking.. If they can configure it to carry Brahmos it will become suicidal to any carrier that is near 1000KM -500KM around our carrier .. If i believe once MKI starts carrying Mig 29K may also be modified for it..

For China the scenario is different.. they are having huge carrier ... so they can offered it... Ultimately at the end of the day... it is the strategy

 

[tvsram1992]

Your welcome, We all learn from each other... Its Mutual... Naval FGFA will be nightmare for others.. I always wanted to see Naval F22. My bad luck that project was closed... @ cost reduction : yes we know that chinese products are cheaper and sometime inferior.. But I can;t claim anything in regard of J15... Secondly China is rapidly developing country, So I think they can afford some costly affairs as well... By copying/cheating/spying russian and American they have saved too much money...

I agree with your second point, since F35 is a generation ahead of Flankers, I think (personal opinion) it will be better than Su33 (J15)..

If you can spend some time here is good reading, Its an old article... (I doubt its authenticity though....)

Navalising the F-22 Raptor
Sukhoi Su-33 and Su-33UB Flanker D Russia's Maritime Multirole Fighter

Su33 and F35c are the restricted versions of their conventional platforms respectively.
They will have reduced payload and fighter capabilities.
F35c will have compromise on cruise missiles as it is committed to stealth, in this way Su33 will have advantage with F-35c .
Hence there are some thing called maritime versions like our coming super 30's with Brahmos capabilities.
Will refuelling and support they can almost kill the enemy carrier.

 

[Vibs]

The reason Russia went for choosing Mig29K is because.. India does not have a carrier with a good displacement to carry the heavy Su's.. If IN went for Su's ultimately it has to sacrifice with lesser planes on board... which is a not wise decision ... One can argue same Su can carry more than for Mig true... but in war more payload is not the option first.. it is the strategy with right load that matters unlike Air force.. if you have more planes on board you can plan more strategies.. so India went for Migs ... India funded the project and Russia used it... as the cost reduces... While Naval Tejas will be there for air superiority ... Mig 29K will be employed for striking.. If they can configure it to carry Brahmos it will become suicidal to any carrier that is near 1000KM -500KM around our carrier .. If i believe once MKI starts carrying Mig 29K may also be modified for it..

For China the scenario is different.. they are having huge carrier ... so they can offered it... Ultimately at the end of the day... it is the strategy

Are you sure it's displacement? I believe it might be the runway configurations.

 

[Vibs]

Su33 and F35c are the restricted versions of their conventional platforms respectively.
They will have reduced payload and fighter capabilities.
F35c will have compromise on cruise missiles as it is committed to stealth, in this way Su33 will have advantage with F-35c .
Hence there are some thing called maritime versions like our coming super 30's with Brahmos capabilities.
Will refuelling and support they can almost kill the enemy carrier.

Works both ways.Even the Su 33 /J-15 will have to be modified. Role of stealth in carrier operations is not as important. Some believe F-22 has a lower RCS than modified F-35.

 

[tvsram1992]

Works both ways.Even the Su 33 /J-15 will have to be modified. Role of stealth in carrier operations is not as important. Some believe F-22 has a lower RCS than modified F-35.

Making a J-15 with su33 capabilities is almost impossible. J15 will have less strike precision, less endurance and lack of arial refuelling for long range missions etc... unlike su33.

Its true F-22 has lower rcs and it highly compromises on strike capabilities.

 

[SpArK]

Its of airforce.

 

[SpArK]

New variant МiG-29К/КUB has been created specially for Admiral Gorshkov / Vikramaditya aircraft carrier who should be transferred to Indian Naval Forces in 2012. The carrier-based fighter has the increased sizes (the wing area has increased with 38 up to 42 м2, are increased the area tail and volume airframe for the increased capacity of fuel). The Possibly empty weight of МiG-29К new version will make not less than 13.200 kg. Two-seat version MiG-29KUB, possibly weight not less than 13.700 kg. For comparison, the weight of empty weight F-18E makes 13.387 kg, two-seat F-18F - 13.880 kg (the information western sources). Sometimes empty weight F-18E/F is accepted to identical size (13.880 kg). Thus, empty weight МiG-29К/КUB (13.300/13800) it is practically identical with F-18E/F (13.387/13.880).

These are deck-test on Admiral Kuznetsov .. Test Including Take off Taxing Landing and Emergency Landing of MIG-29KUB which will later delivered to India..Vikramaditya will have more Deck area than Admiral Kuznetsov ..so This Sea Beauty will have more space to perform than this testing platform.

The aircraft were formally inducted into the Navy on 19 Feb 2010 with INAS 303 "Black Panthers"

The Zhuk-ME is an advanced variant of the original N010 Zhuk radar introducing advanced air to surface functions like mapping and terrain following. The radar forms part of the MiG-29K specific equipment. The radar features improved signal processing and has a detection range of up to 120 km vs a 5 m2 RCS target for the export variant, and up to 10 targets tracked and up to 4 attacked at once in air to air mode. The tracking range is 0.83 - 0.85 of the detection range. In air to surface mode the radar can detect a tank from up to 25 km away and a bridge from 120 km away, a naval destroyer could be detected up to 300 km away and up to two surface targets can be tracked at once. The radar has a weight of 220 kg and a scanning area of +/- 85 degrees in azimuth and +56/-40 in elevation. The antenna is an electronically scanned slotted planar array and has a diameter of 624 mm.

The Zhuk-AE radar was developed with modular approach, enabling upgrade of existing Zhuk ME radars deployed in MiG-29 platforms into the active electronic scanned array (AESA) Zhuk-AE standard. India is already operating the BAR phased array radar on its Su-30MKI and has specified AESA as a critical element of the MRCA platform. There were some reports that the optional MiG-29K/KUB for India are offered with Zhuk AE.

The MiG-29K's design relies on a combination of low-observable technology, advanced electronic-warfare capabilities, reduced ballistic vulnerability, and the use of standoff weapons to enhance the fighter's survivability.It has a reduced radar signature according to Mikoyan from the extensive use of radar-absorbent materials. Special coatings reduce the MiG-29K's radar signature 4-5 times over the F18. RD-33MK turbofan engine full FDAC contains systems that reduce its infrared and optical visibility.