Thread: What happened 2 indian 126 multiorole fighters

Originally Posted by stone_cold

Isnt MiG-29M2 the same aircraft as Mig-35?

Yes.

BTW Garry, what changes have Mig Corp done on the airframes? And how much diff is it from the ealier version Mig 29s which IAF already have.

Originally Posted by stone_cold

Isnt MiG-29M2 the same aircraft as Mig-35?

I was told so on press conference.

Originally Posted by indianguy4u

Yes.

BTW Garry, what changes have Mig Corp done on the airframes? And how much diff is it from the ealier version Mig 29s which IAF already have.

On the press conference of annual results of MiG Corp I met one old friend who used to work for Sukhoi and then went to MiG when the corporation was taken over by Irkut/Sukhoi managers.

We talked a little, and then I asked about Indian contract... He stated that MiG puts this contract as ABSOLUTE MOST IMPORTANT PRIORITY.... he said that Indians will get the opportunities which they had with Sukhoi - fine tune product for their own needs for GOOD CASH!

OK. Sorry back to the issue. I got very little. From what I understood that MiG-29M2 was already modified.... and airframe of MiG-29M2 will be changed only slightly.....

but will be modified further. So Indians will get MiG-29M2 eixisting version initially but then will start receiving the one tailored to their need..... while earlier deliveries would be called back, upgraded and returned.

He told that Airframe on proposed new version of MiG-29 would be slightly different. It will be more expensive but will be lighter due to use of titanium. It already got a fin with fuel. As you know MiG-29M2 is a bit longer than initial versions. The new Indian version will remain these dimensions. It will have almost doube the internal fuel of initial versions of MiG-29.... - around 6,000 liters the Indian MiG will also have further upgraded engines which would be 20% lighter than initial MiG-29 RD-33, have larger trust, and better economy on cruise modes. This would give new Indian MiG-29 better range....

I browsed and read in Russian language sites that MiG-29M2 has max range on internal fuel of 2,000km.... I hope that Indian version would be slightly more than that stretching combat radius!

ps. just wanted to add. Phazatron and MIG attached a guarantee that Indians would get Phazatron made active phazed array radar as soon as it is launched into serial production - AT PRICE OF RUSSIAN ARMY!!! However this would mean that Indians will not be able to use these fighters on airshows abroad and that they would have to keep some confidentiality on the radar actual capabilities.

This guarantee has date - by 2012..... all MiGs would be installed new active radar!

The only reason I could see for getting the F-18 is the more advaned tech and carrier capability.

Originally Posted by canoe

The only reason I could see for getting the F-18 is the more advaned tech and carrier capability.

But would you really call Super Hornet a LIGHT fighter? it is not Heavy/Long range but definitelly not LIGHT.

Its take off weight is 30.000kg compared to 23,400kg of initial Hornet. Even though Russian engineers have increased max take off weight of later generation MiG-29MM2 to 22,700kg it is still close to initial 18,000 kg.

Another point - if you need a heavy/long range fighter why not to go for Flanker/Eagle? If light assumes price then F-18 would cost times more than a longer range Flanker..... So I would call Super Hornet MIDDLE fighter!

Originally Posted by Garry

But would you really call Super Hornet a LIGHT fighter? it is not Heavy/Long range but definitelly not LIGHT.

Its take off weight is 30.000kg compared to 23,400kg of initial Hornet. Even though Russian engineers have increased max take off weight of later generation MiG-29MM2 to 22,700kg it is still close to initial 18,000 kg.

Another point - if you need a heavy/long range fighter why not to go for Flanker/Eagle? If light assumes price then F-18 would cost times more than a longer range Flanker..... So I would call Super Hornet MIDDLE fighter!

I never stated the hornet was a light fighter, although I suppose it could fit into that catagory. The hornet is a born and bred multirole fighter though. Jack of all trades, master of none.

I suggested the only two reasons I could see for getting the hornet would be the advanced avionics that come with it and the fact it can operate off a carrier at sea. If India doesn't mind spending the extra coin for them they're not all that bad for their specific role(which is basiclly being able to do everything).

Originally Posted by Captain Drunk

Nope, like Russia and China, India's need is more in numerical strength with less cost of hardware over fighters with costly software electronics suites. A high speed Foxbat with long-range missiles that would fall in the class of an HVAA fighter like F-14, could cost much less than the Super Hornet, that fails to make it to Mach 2. No wonder Russia's produced more than 500 Foxbats and 500 Foxhounds.

Technically if you going for production numbers as superiority the F-16 wins I beleive. 4000+ aircraft produced and counting.

Originally Posted by canoe

The only reason I could see for getting the F-18 is the more advaned tech and carrier capability.

None of the IN carriers have catapult sys, which is required for SHs. Also its IAF & not IN which has tendered for MRCA ACs. So even if SH wins the contract, still it wont see carrier operations.