Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:24 am

    The MiG-29Ks were a freebee... basically all the development was paid for by the sales to India and continued sales will keep production going for some time so it makes sense to buy them for the Russian Military.

    Regarding upgrading the Su-33s they were very basic and any modification would greatly improve their capabilities making the still very useful carrier aircraft... I rather suspect Sukhoi is offering a very attractive upgrade package at a greatly subsidised price as it will keep them in the naval carrier aircraft game.

    Personally I think having MiG-29k2s and Su-33SM3s is a good thing for the Russian Navy...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  flamming_python on Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:17 am

    GarryB wrote:The MiG-29Ks were a freebee... basically all the development was paid for by the sales to India and continued sales will keep production going for some time so it makes sense to buy them for the Russian Military.

    Regarding upgrading the Su-33s they were very basic and any modification would greatly improve their capabilities making the still very useful carrier aircraft... I rather suspect Sukhoi is offering a very attractive upgrade package at a greatly subsidised price as it will keep them in the naval carrier aircraft game.

    Personally I think having MiG-29k2s and Su-33SM3s is a good thing for the Russian Navy...

    They don't need both of them - either one or the other, having them both is a waste of money.

    It might make sense if those Su-33s were modernized for assignment to non-carrier duties.

    GJ Flanker
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 40
    Points : 42
    Join date : 2012-07-28

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  GJ Flanker on Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:26 am

    Su-33 is a very potent platform. The upgrade could, should, include the ability to carry Kalibr and Yakhont/BrahMos missiles. Also RVV-SD and RVV-MD AAM. I hope the Su-33SM will get Bars radar with AESA array. The MiG-29KR is not that suitable for heavy ASM's.

    A Su-33SM - MiG-29KR/KUBR Combo is the best thing that could happen to the RuNavy at this moment.

    IMHO a further, more stealth, developed S-37 Berkut naval version, would be even better than a naval PAK FA. I know money, money, money, but new threat situations for Russia...

    T-50 for RuAF, S-37 for RuNA!

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  flamming_python on Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:58 am

    GJ Flanker wrote:The MiG-29KR is not that suitable for heavy ASM's.

    Which heavy ASMs would it need to be suited for?

    AFAIK it's already compatible with the Kalibr (but perhaps not the longer, supersonic variants), and while the Onyx is too heavy - the Brahmos-M is being developed for the Indian Navy's MiG-29Ks; the idea is that up to 2 of them could be fitted per plane. Nothing to stop Russia from buying the Brahmos-M when its ready.

    A Su-33SM - MiG-29KR/KUBR Combo is the best thing that could happen to the RuNavy at this moment.

    You'll be able to fit in more MiG-29Ks into the hold/deck space that the Su-33s currently occupy - even w/o the big Kuznetsov overhaul.
    You'll also be able to replace all the Su-25UTGs onboard with MiG-29KUBs - that will be able to fulfil not only training roles during peacetime duties; but combat ones too.

    GJ Flanker
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 40
    Points : 42
    Join date : 2012-07-28

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  GJ Flanker on Sun Mar 22, 2015 12:33 pm

    First:
    The MiG-29KR will surely have some issues taking off from the Kuznetsov with 2 heavy ASM! Suitable for the MiG-29KR are AS-17 and AS-20!

    Second:
    The Su-33SM will have "longer legs" than the MiG-29KR. Simply more range and I think the better air superiority fighter with its canards. In the end no issues with heavy Yakhont and Kalibr!

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  flamming_python on Sun Mar 22, 2015 1:04 pm

    GJ Flanker wrote:First:
    The MiG-29KR will surely have some issues taking off from the Kuznetsov with 2 heavy ASM! Suitable for the MiG-29KR are AS-17 and AS-20!

    The Brahmos-M is not a heavy ASM - it is in fact the mini-version of the Brahmos, currently under development alongside the Brahmos-2.

    The Indian MiG-29Ks are designed to fly from the Vikramaditya, presumably with a full ordanance load.
    Don't see why the Indo-Russian joint-venture would bother to develop the Brahmos-M, with a specification that 2 can be carried by MiG-29Ks - if there is no way to actually achieve that in practise.
    If Indian MiG-29Ks can take-off with two Brahmos-Ms from the Vikramaditya, then there is no reason why Russian MiG-29Ks won't be able to take off with 2 Brahmos-Ms or any other specified load from the Kuznetsov.

    On the other hand there has been much speculation about how Su-33s can't take off with their max. ordanance capacity or anything near it from the Kuznetsov. I don't know the validity of this, but it does sound plausible.

    Second:
    The Su-33SM will have "longer legs" than the MiG-29KR. Simply more range and I think the better air superiority fighter with its canards. In the end no issues with heavy Yakhont and Kalibr!

    The Su-33 does have significantly greater range. The MiG-29K also has fewer hardpoints, is not compatible with the Yakhont and possibly the supersonic Kalibr-variants and yes - it doesn't have canards and thus has a disadvantage in turn-radius and manuevers.

    But in every other characteristic you can think of; flight, electronic or otherwise - the current production model of the MiG-29K is equal or superior in every way to the current Su-33s in service.

    Certainly the Su-33s would be able to match a lot of those characteristics with a modernization program. But even then, you'll still be left with significantly older aircraft as opposed to newly-built ones, that you won't be able to fit as many of onto the same ship. What's the point?

    mack8
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 923
    Points : 983
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  mack8 on Sun Mar 22, 2015 2:29 pm

    It looks like they like the long rang of the Su-33, that's why they hang on to them. Possibly the upgraded ones will act as a sort of stop gap until the T-50K? (also long range)

    If the Su-33s have enough hours on them, given the cost of new aircraft (they have decided long ago restarting production of Su-33 is not feasible) an upgrade is comparatively very cost effective to significantly increase their potential for the remaining time they will be in service. They will probably upgrade about 12 or so imo if they'll go ahead.

    GJ Flanker
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 40
    Points : 42
    Join date : 2012-07-28

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  GJ Flanker on Sun Mar 22, 2015 2:32 pm

    At the end, you've to admit, a super-dooper modernized Su-33 will have the edge over a MiG-29KR in every way.

    GJ Flanker
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 40
    Points : 42
    Join date : 2012-07-28

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  GJ Flanker on Sun Mar 22, 2015 2:34 pm

    The only advantage, of the MiG-29KR, over the current Sea Flanker was, that it is a multirole fighter and nothing more!

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  flamming_python on Sun Mar 22, 2015 3:04 pm

    mack8 wrote:It looks like they like the long rang of the Su-33, that's why they hang on to them. Possibly the upgraded ones will act as a sort of stop gap until the T-50K? (also long range)

    If the Su-33s have enough hours on them, given the cost of new aircraft (they have decided long ago restarting production of Su-33 is not feasible) an upgrade is comparatively very cost effective to significantly increase their potential for the remaining time they will be in service. They will probably upgrade about 12 or so imo if they'll go ahead.

    Yes that's the only thing I can think of, a combination of the Su-33s superior range, and the fact that the naval PAK-FA could be ready in less than a decade; and the only thing that's really needed is a stop-gap.

    The logic makes sense but overall I'm not convinced. Drop-tanks can be used to increase MiG-29K ranges, while the increasing minaturization and range-increases of anti-ship and anti-air weaponary means that todays MiG-29Ks will be able to hit all the same targets that Su-33s could 10-15 years ago anyway.
    Meanwhile in terms of the naval PAK-FA - there is no need to rush it at all. The naval PAK-FA should be developed for the next-generation of ACs, that will have more space for a large fighter like the PAK-FA, and will probably have EM-catapults that will insure that they will be able to launch at max-loads. This will also give time for all the chinks in the design of the baseline PAK-FA to be ironed out, before launching the production of the naval version.
    In terms of the Kuznetsov - it is a smaller AC with only ski-ramps - but with its eventual overhaul it will certainly be able to carry quite a large MIG-29K complement, this is an ideal aircraft for it and the Kuznetsov can be equipped with them right up to its eventual retirement.

    My only hope is that they still plan to go ahead with MiG-29K introduction, but want to modernize and keep around a few Su-33s in the carrier air-wing for the long-range missions. I guess such an idea has its value too.

    GJ Flanker wrote:At the end, you've to admit, a super-dooper modernized Su-33 will have the edge over a MiG-29KR in every way.

    No I don't have to 'admit' it.

    The MiG-29K is a newly-built aircraft that will be able to serve for a lot longer than just the 10 years that the Su-33 upgrade will give, there are no questions about its ability to take-off with full weapons loadouts from ski-ramp aircraft carriers, and you will be able to fit considerably more MiG-29Ks/MiG-29KUBs onto the Kuznetsov than you could fit Su-33s; owing to their compactness and the ability of MiG-29KUBs to double as trainer aircraft.

    Actually I'm surprised they have decided that the Su-33s have another 10 years left in them. Modernization will do zilch for the age of the airframe, and I have heard that those airframes are pretty worn-out by now, needing replacement and soon. That was part of the big reason for the MiG-29K program funding; and the idea that India's purchasing of MiG-29Ks will make it worthwhile to build ones for the Russian navy too.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  medo on Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:50 pm

    Modernization of Su-33 have some sense, as they were last flankers build in the mid nineties. They were built for carrier operations over the sea, but they quite rarely fly from carrier. Anyway, they could serve quite a long time as ground based fighters in Murmansk region do defend Murmansk naval base and Arctic region. Don't forget, MiG-31BM is fast interceptor and Su-34 is a fighter bomber. They need an agile fighter like Su-33 there, specially when Su-33 is also equipped with IFR and with that it have longer range over arctic than standard Su-27 and equipped for navigation over the sea. Modernized to Su-27SM3 standard will be still capable fighter to protect the open gate over warm gulf stream to the Arctic region. MiG-29K/KUB will be quite enough for their carrier operations.

    With a squadron of Su-33 in Murmansk together with a squadron of MiG-31BM in Murmansk and a squadron of MiG-31BM in Novaya Zemlja island, they will be capable to defend the gate to the Arctic region.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  TR1 on Sun Mar 22, 2015 8:19 pm

    GJ Flanker wrote:At the end, you've to admit, a super-dooper modernized Su-33 will have the edge over a MiG-29KR in every way.


    No, that is wrong.

    You will always be able to fit more Mig-29Ks on the Kuz.
    Also, it has a TWR advantage and plenty of performance characteristics that a Su-33 will not be matching.

    Now it will certainly have its advantages, but the question is, how relevant are they to what the RuNavy wants. They don't operate Su-33s with heavy AShMs in any case- and even if they do modernize them to be multirole, I suspect the most they will be carrying off the Kuz is the Kh-35 and Kh-31. Both are missiles that the MiG-29K carries.

    There is this notion online that the Flanker platform is flat out better than Fulcrum in every sense aside from price, but it is just not true.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  TR1 on Sun Mar 22, 2015 8:27 pm

    GJ Flanker wrote:The only advantage, of the MiG-29KR, over the current Sea Flanker was, that it is a multirole fighter and nothing more!

    Will the Sea Flanker ever climb as fast as the MiG-29K? No. An important characteristic for air superiority wouldn't you say.
    Will it cost ever as little to operate? No.
    Will it have as good of a sustained turn rate? Likely no.
    Will it have as fast of in-line acceleration? No.

    Look I could go on, but the point is the situation is more nuanced.

    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1946
    Points : 2117
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Cyberspec on Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:08 pm

    It might be something to do with inter service rivalry. The Navy has always wanted to be as independent from the VVS as possible....the more aircraft they control - the better from their perspective

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Stealthflanker on Mon Mar 23, 2015 9:41 am

    Cyberspec wrote:It might be something to do with inter service rivalry. The Navy has always wanted to be as independent from the VVS as possible....the more aircraft they control - the better from their perspective

    Well they can buy more MiG-29K's, newer structure, newer technology and surely can last longer.

    Anyway i agree that upgrading Su-33 would be hmmm inexpedient. It can however be given mid-life update so it will remain relevant like Su-27SKM but no.. it won't be more advanced than MiG-29K's unless some deep surgery be done to the airframe. Won't be economic especially given that Su-33 weren't produced in the number of land based Su-27S's.

    If such heavy fighters are needed however.. Ru Navy might might better off with restarting Su-33 production line.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 23, 2015 10:31 am

    They don't need both of them - either one or the other, having them both is a waste of money.

    You could argue they don't need Mi-28s and Ka-52s... but they have both and they are different enough to be complimentary.

    I would say the same with the Su-33 and MiG-29K2... certainly they don't need both but both have been developed and the latter paid for already.

    It might make sense if those Su-33s were modernized for assignment to non-carrier duties.

    The US Navy had the F-35 and the F-18... on paper they are both fighter bombers...

    the Su-33 is larger and heavier and would have better range and with its main wing and horizontal tail surfaces all folding as well as its nose it can actually fit in similar sized places that a MiG-29K can fit so the hangar space argument is not as significant as some might make it.

    The real difference is that the MiG-29K is fully multirole, while the Su-33 is an Su-27 that can carry Kh-31s and Kh-35s.

    The MiG-29K also has fewer hardpoints, is not compatible with the Yakhont and possibly the supersonic Kalibr-variants and yes - it doesn't have canards and thus has a disadvantage in turn-radius and manuevers.

    Su-33 can't carry Yakhont either... AFAIK the only Flanker that has been seen firing Yakhont is Su-34.

    Both the Su-33 and MiG-29K are limited to 8gs because of their folding wings.

    The only advantage, of the MiG-29KR, over the current Sea Flanker was, that it is a multirole fighter and nothing more!

    So the fact that the MiG-29KR is a better fighter and a better bomber means nothing?

    the MiG-29KR should be compatible with the R-37M with a 280km range...

    My only hope is that they still plan to go ahead with MiG-29K introduction, but want to modernize and keep around a few Su-33s in the carrier air-wing for the long-range missions. I guess such an idea has its value too.

    So pretty much what they are doing is what the Air Force did when it upgraded some bog standard Su-27SM aircraft to keep up numbers even though they will get PAK FA sooner than the navy will...

    Well they can buy more MiG-29K's, newer structure, newer technology and surely can last longer.

    An upgrade will always be cheaper than new builds, plus they already have plenty of operational experience with Flankers.

    If such heavy fighters are needed however.. Ru Navy might might better off with restarting Su-33 production line.

    I suspect they primarily want compatibility with the R-77 and other newer weapons... the Su-33 is not able to carry most of the new weapons deployed by the Air Force and Navy... it is basically a bog standard Su-27 with R-27 and R-73 for air to air and dumb bombs and dumb rockets and cannon, plus Kh-31 and Kh-35 for air to ground. I suspect an upgrade to the radar to actually detect and track sea surface targets and ground targets and to use laser and TV guided air to ground weaponry is the priority... plus digitalising all the systems will make them easier and cheaper to maintain.

    This wont be a naval Su-35 we are talking about... it will most likely just be an Su-27SM upgrade we are talking about.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    chicken
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 83
    Points : 88
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  chicken on Tue Mar 24, 2015 5:14 am



    If a Mig-35 can carry Kalibr can a Mig-29K also carry it?

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  flamming_python on Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:55 am

    chicken wrote:

    If a Mig-35 can carry Kalibr can a Mig-29K also carry it?

    I haven't seen any evidence that any MiG-29/MiG-35 can carry a supersonic Kalibr variant.

    But yes a MiG-29K can for sure carry a subsonic one.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:03 am

    I haven't seen any evidence that any MiG-29/MiG-35 can carry a supersonic Kalibr variant.

    But yes a MiG-29K can for sure carry a subsonic one.

    AFAIK they are a very similar weight... the supersonic version having a 200kg warhead and the subsonic version twice that (400kgs).

    Add to that the mini Brahmos-M mentioned on this forum with a mach 3 speed and a 500km range I rather suspect it will be a very potent aircraft...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:31 am

    GarryB wrote:
    I haven't seen any evidence that any MiG-29/MiG-35 can carry a supersonic Kalibr variant.

    But yes a MiG-29K can for sure carry a subsonic one.

    AFAIK they are a very similar weight... the supersonic version having a 200kg warhead and the subsonic version twice that (400kgs).

    Add to that the mini Brahmos-M mentioned on this forum with a mach 3 speed and a 500km range I rather suspect it will be a very potent aircraft...

    The thing is that the Supersonic version is a couple metres longer or so.

    I was looking over MiG-29K/MiG-35 weapon capability the other day and I found only references to subsonic Kalibr model designations; hence my suspicions.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  medo on Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:25 pm

    MiG-29K/KUB could not carry Yakhont/Onyx missile, because it is too heavy with weight of 3 t. I think even Klub with 1.5 t is too heavy for MiG-29K to carry it under its wings pylons. Su-33 on the other hand could carry Klub missiles under body pylons, they are not too heavy.

    Regarding R-37M long range AAM, MiG-29K could not use it, because it have to small and too weak radar. I'm not sure if Su-30SM could use it, as Su-30SM doesn't have L-band components in its radar, although Bars-R radar have enough range and power. I think this missile will be in use only with miG-31BM, Su-35 and PAK-FA,because they have L-band radars.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:24 am

    I was looking over MiG-29K/MiG-35 weapon capability the other day and I found only references to subsonic Kalibr model designations; hence my suspicions.

    I don't know of any air launched anti ship model of Klub... the airborne launched models AFAIK are land attack Kalibr only.

    the MiG-35 has a unified design with the MiG-29K and can carry 2.5 ton payloads on its two inner wing pylons...

    I was looking over MiG-29K/MiG-35 weapon capability the other day and I found only references to subsonic Kalibr model designations; hence my suspicions.

    That is perhaps why they are bothering to make the smaller lighter Brahmos-M?

    Regarding R-37M long range AAM, MiG-29K could not use it, because it have to small and too weak radar. I'm not sure if Su-30SM could use it, as Su-30SM doesn't have L-band components in its radar, although Bars-R radar have enough range and power. I think this missile will be in use only with miG-31BM, Su-35 and PAK-FA,because they have L-band radars.

    Actually most modern fighters could use it as its primary use is against large aircraft like JSTARS, AWACS, Transport aircraft, tanker aircraft etc etc.

    With its AESA radar the MiG-35 should have no problem using it to max range, but aircraft like the MiG-29K could also use it to slightly shorter distances with higher energies...



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    chicken
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 83
    Points : 88
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  chicken on Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:45 am

    flamming_python wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    I haven't seen any evidence that any MiG-29/MiG-35 can carry a supersonic Kalibr variant.

    But yes a MiG-29K can for sure carry a subsonic one.

    AFAIK they are a very similar weight... the supersonic version having a 200kg warhead and the subsonic version twice that (400kgs).

    Add to that the mini Brahmos-M mentioned on this forum with a mach 3 speed and a 500km range I rather suspect it will be a very potent aircraft...

    The thing is that the Supersonic version is a couple metres longer or so.

    I was looking over MiG-29K/MiG-35 weapon capability the other day and I found only references to subsonic Kalibr model designations; hence my suspicions.



    It's pretty long. Also nice capsule.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:08 am

    GarryB wrote:
    I was looking over MiG-29K/MiG-35 weapon capability the other day and I found only references to subsonic Kalibr model designations; hence my suspicions.

    I don't know of any air launched anti ship model of Klub... the airborne launched models AFAIK are land attack Kalibr only.

    I've seen quite a few references to the MiG-29K/MiG-35 being compatible with the subsonic versions of the Kalibr; in both their land-attack and anti-ship export variants.

    e.g. http://www.flyfighterjet.com/jetflights/mig-29-documentary-wings-of-russia.html

    That is perhaps why they are bothering to make the smaller lighter Brahmos-M?

    It seems to be the only supersonic anti-ship missile that we definately know to be compatible with the MiG-29K/MiG-35.

    The only snag is that it seems to be targatted for the Indian Navy and export market, but I'm sure that the Russian Navy is examining the possibility of procuring them for their own use - if they haven't decided on it already that is.

    For the subsonic role the MiG-29K/MiG-35s have both the Uran and the subsonic Kalibr; so no problems there.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  TR1 on Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:34 pm

    Is there any actual news that any service is integrating Klub/Kalibr with MiG-29K?

    Plastic containers are nice, but I have yet to see anything past that. And doubt there is anything.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Naval Aviation: News

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:22 pm


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:22 pm