Friday, October 02, 2009

VIDEO: MiG-29K Flight Tests Off Kuznetsov Carrier


A Russian news channel report containing footage of two Indian Navy MiG-29Ks (the second is a KUB) conducting final flight-tests off Russia's Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier in the Barents Sea. The two aircraft, along with two more, are scheduled to be delivered at the end of this year to India's INS Hansa naval air station in Goa.

17 comments :

Anonymous said...

With all respect this video shows shit. Unloaded planes, empty flight deck and non-armed planes. See how the Americans do it in Force 5 gales off South America and you'll tremble at how crap India has been.

Nitish said...

WOW! nice to see them in action. thanx Shiv.

Wolfandman said...

How to choose... The aircraft or the wonderful lady news anchor!

But seriously, I think it is an awfully short take off run and an equally steep glide slope. I haven't seen the USN fighters land this fast and hard. This is going to mean some serious take-off and landing weight penalties.

Anonymous said...

@ anonymous

really? yeah this was just a small tv news clip. sure, the video doesn't show anything overly impressive, but the last sentence of your post was nonsensical and irrelevant. like saying, "look at that guy jogging, what a loser i know of people who can sprint."

Anonymous said...

Folks must keep in mind that this was the fist landing and take-off test on a vessel. No one would land with full load on the first try, I am sure more tests are to come where landing with more and more load is planned. Great video!

Anonymous said...

There are always some Paki or Chinki trolls on sites like these posting negative comments
IGNORE THEM.
SHIV DELETE THOSE COMMENTS

Anonymous said...

The anon@7.10 p.m. is right, which hotshot will try to take off with full load & in Force 5 gales on the very first test flight?! I guess the anonymous idiot who posted the first comment must have been born whole from his mother's womb with a laptop in his hand, hence his high expectations!

Anonymous said...

The anonymous idiot of 1st post is vincent. You should have guessed it by now. Freedom of speech allows him to humiliate Indians on an Indian blog. Wonder when did US allow freedom of speech to talk about merits of socialism or communism ever. Freedom does not mean we have to allow someone humiliate us.

Anonymous said...

Yes, that must be vincent.

He is a stupid AH moron M#.

No one will do all the tests with live bombs on them in their very first flight.

Is he so F#$&ing stupid to give a thinking on this?

Anonymous said...

In the video at 1.46 min, they pick up the pilot and knock his balls against the tailhook of the mig 29. It's hilarious.
Is this some tradition among naval pilots or these guys had too much of vodka?

Anonymous said...

if Indians have nothing to be humiliated about, I wouldn't humiliate you

you take my stern words as humiliation and use that as an excuse not to improve yourselves

a peoples of over a billion should be now a superpower, instead you're still wallowing around flying russian death traps and practicing russian socialism

the fact is that even without bombs, the sink rate of the planes is atrocious, which points to either the poor doctrine of russian and indian navy pilots, or the unsuitability of the Mig-29 basic design for carrier ops (carrier planes tend to have less swept back wings and bigger flaps in front).

with a poor carrier design like this, and poor planes, a simple thing like bad weather will cause all ops to cease and the fleet to have to depart the area. so much for power projection.

dont blame me if you continue to follow russian idiots down the hellhole instead of doing what the West does best - separate enemies from their bad attitudes by shooting or bombing them to pieces.

babu indians love russian junk because they wouldn't look out of place in it. you are the new indians, same skin and same hairy armpits, but you should be modern citizens of the world with higher expectations. after all, many of you belong to the highest caste - desis.

gerard said...

Gentlemen... PLEASE STAND UP!!!!... We should be humble to be in the Presence Of MR "TOP GUN" himself... with his Vast Knowledge of Flight dynamics , military technology - history and Carrier ops ( all contribution from & by wikipiedia)

He must be descented or related to a Military Genius ( must be related to General Benedict Arnold!!! )

Therefore People, Please we all need to give him all the Respect he deserves...

Jai Hind

Anonymous said...

@ Vincent aka anonymous at 4:54 am,

"you take my stern words as humiliation and use that as an excuse not to improve yourselves"

Who has ever asked for your unsolicited advise? Nobody owes you even "excuses".

"..and practicing russian socialism"
How many times will you have to be informed that you are the ONLY exception/anomaly that is purely capitalist? Your european fellow "western capitalists" are also effectively socialist now.

"or the unsuitability of the Mig-29 basic design for carrier ops"

Mig29K has been tested and used since 1988 and is an ALL-WEATHER aircraft.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-29k.htm#
So how did you conclude it is "unsuitable". Nobody is calling it an ultimate naval fighter. But expecting our purchase philosophy to be same as that of pampered brats with world's highest defence budget is a JOKE.

"don't blame me..."

Who are you? A self-appointed advisor will be blamed by us?? LOL

Anonymous said...

The Mig-29 has ever had 1 kill and was shot down dozens in times in real battles.

3 crippling problems for the basic model:

1. Shorter legs than even your wife.
2. Underpowered, smoky, unreliable engines.
3. Less advanced avionics than found in my BMW.

There is a reason why the Germans after reunifying and trying out the planes, dumped Mig-29 rather than the F-4 Phantom you know.

Used on a ship, a Mig-29 requires additional strengthening. When the russians tried just using a Mig-29, the foresection separated from the rest of the plane upon catching the wire and disappeared over the bow of the carrier with a brief, wet scream from the pilot trapped inside.

Heavier - more fuel, more avionics, more strengthening, more sturdy engine - the Mig-29K will inevitably suffer where it previously was the world best - close-in knife fighting. Furthermore, for a carrier plane, its loadout (at 6000 pounds or so) is quite poor, which is exacerbated by the ski bow jump (no catapult for miserly India stirring the bargain bin) which means further penalties. I would not be surprised if the planes can only attack with a pair of 500 pounder bombs each.

So, you basically bought a carrier to, er, carry planes. That's it. With 16 planes, you only have enough for fleet defense and perhaps a pair or two pair of attack. The Pakistanis must be shivering in their jammies, oh wait, they are snoring peacefully in their ports, since your carrier and Mig-29 combo are more for anti-ship purposes.

This is absolutely true words, spoken with clipped tones like golden plums falling from the tree.

Anonymous said...

"The Mig-29 has ever had 1 kill and was shot down dozens in times in real battles."
First-mover advantage in which supporting radar, AAM batteries etc are lost has belonged to those allied with US. So it becomes isolated platform vs integrated system fight. Not really an apple to apple comparison. Success in such cases can be attributed to robust system integration with datalinks, intelligence input, AWACS etc.


"2. Underpowered, smoky, unreliable engines."

smoky yes, shorter engine life yes but unreliable ????

"3. Less advanced avionics than found in my BMW."

Likewise your wristwatch must be less "advanced" than casio digital wristwatches.


"There is a reason why the Germans after reunifying and trying out the planes, dumped Mig-29 rather than the F-4 Phantom you know."

The same F-4 which lost 1:1 with older MiGs forget the 29 in Vietnam?? Existing strategic alliance with US made it easier to maintain/upgrade F-4 than a Mig-29 for the Germans. simple as that.


"When the russians tried just using a Mig-29, the foresection separated from the rest of the plane upon catching the wire and disappeared over the bow of the carrier with a brief, wet scream from the pilot trapped inside."

Thank you for telling us what we already knew: an airforce fighter cannot be used directly as a naval fighter.


"Heavier - more fuel, more avionics, more strengthening, more sturdy engine - the Mig-29K will inevitably suffer where it previously was the world best - close-in knife fighting."

a) Enemy's naval fighter will have similar strengthening induced weight disadvantages unless it is airforce fighter.
b) BVR engagements with not necesarily russkie missiles will happen before that


"Furthermore, for a carrier plane, its loadout (at 6000 pounds or so) is quite poor"
Flying overloaded EASY DUCKS works for you because you first overwhelm & destroy enemy defences with barrage of cruise missiles. Unless we carry an equally huge inventory of cruise missiles and have COMPLETE intelligence of enemy's defences right at the onset, we anyways cannot fly overloaded easy ducks.

"which is exacerbated by the ski bow jump (no catapult for miserly India stirring the bargain bin)"

Simpler engineering systems have lesser maintenance headache leading to better preparedness and smaller carrier crew. It comes at the price of course. It's called Trade-off.


"I would not be surprised if the planes can only attack with a pair of 500 pounder bombs each."
Speculation

"With 16 planes, you only have enough for fleet defense and perhaps a pair or two pair of attack."
The Migs are supposed to be joined by naval LCAs

Anonymous said...

As much as Vincent is an A$$, he makes a legitimate point. The aircraft in the video have a very high fast glide pattern towards the deck. Of course, it's not a Nimitz Class carrier and therefore you don't have the safety of a long runway for aborted landings, but that does mean you have to lower landing weight significantly. If the aircraft did have a higher lift capacity, they could gun down the throttle a bit more and stabilize the glide to a much less steeper and slower approach. That would make it possible to land with fuel and munitions without destroying your undercarriage. It's true that the MiG-29 wasn't designed for carrier ops. That is the only carrier capable aircraft we can use, so we use it when we can. It isn't an excuse to spend 20 billion on a fleet of new carriers and a new set of carrier fighter.

satbir said...

16 are the start more will be ordered and will be accompanied by naval tejas. Navy may have 50 mig and 50 tejas. Upto 70 will be be based on the 2 new carriers coming in 2013 and 2014. Russian navy may also order mig so price may go down for our next order