Indian Navy MiG-29Ks

From my understanding a large part of those Mig29, including the engines, were manufactured in India.

I never heard about such problems on the Mig29k for the Russian navy (one aircraft was lost for remaining without fuel, but that was an operational mistake).

Maybe the problem stays with Indian quality and mistakes in production, and possibly someone even installed parts for the land based Mig29 in the Mig29k.

And possibly this is the reason Dassault preferred to sell aircrafts fully manufactured and sell also full overhaul support. In that case Indian mistakes cannot ruin the reputation of the aircraft

Sujoy wrote:
The Mig 29K was supposed to be a carrier borne aircraft. However, they were found to be unsuitable for carrier operations as the airframe could not handle deck landing. Subsequently, they are only being used from shore based facilities.

Sujoy wrote:
Mig 29Ks serviceability ranged from 21% to 47% with over 40 engines having to be withdrawn due to design defects. The airframe was never designed for deck landing.

How do you know that they are design defect and not production defects?

And concerning the airframe, the airframe of the MiG-29M was never designed for for deck landing, but it was extensively modified for the MiG-29k.

As far as I could understand from public available information both airframe and landing gear have been reinforced (and the landing gear track widened) (in comparison to the Mig-29M) in order to withstand the stress experienced upon landing.

(In addition to the other obvious modifications like folding wings, arrestor hook, etc)


India could have also ordered Su-33 (which was probably the first suggestion from Russia) if they wanted something proven in carrier operation. They insisted for the mig-29k.

The MiG-29 was already a rugged design intended for short operational strips on land, and as mention the MiG-29K was modified for naval use including corrosion resistant materials etc etc.

No aircraft has no problems and bitching and moaning that it doesn't work is pathetic... look at the F-35 as an example of that, where problems are ignored or wallpapered over to pretend they are not problems.

If there are problems then work with MiG and find them and fix them... unless the problem is not the design and is in fact black market parts or bad maintenance.

If the RD-33 is so damn unreliable then why would China develop a singled engined aircraft that uses that engine and why would Pakistan buy it?

Sounds like lies are being spread to make the plane look bad... which, as I said will lead to another aircraft taking its place... whether than is a Hornet or Rafale or Tegas... each of which will have their own problems and also cost significantly more... in the case of the two western aircraft you will likely need to buy western aircraft carriers to get the cat launch equipment... the US has plenty of old aircraft carriers to sell off, and the Rafale is compatible with US cats I believe... so 10 billion for a US carrier and 20 billion for Rafales and helicopters and other aircraft... and not a single word about how expensive it all is.

The Australians are feeling the same thing...

The 90 billion dollar project for French SSKs that was just too expensive, is turning into a 350 billion dollar order for US nuke subs... obviously because they want to base their nuke subs in Australia and they want Australia to upgrade their ports to handle nuke subs... this way Australia pays for the benefit of getting Chinese IRBMs pointed at them...

Off topic, but the funny thing about Australia is that they are changing their plans about getting nuclear powered vessels. The British built the two aircraft carriers with conventional propulsion with the excuse that a nuclear propulsion carrier would not have been allowed to dock at an Australian harbour because of their policies (seems strange....

Actually I think that is relevant... it shows how manipulative the US is... the cost for the UK is to spend 500 billion on Trident upgrades (because obviously UK nukes are the only thing stopping a Russian invasion of europe), and for that money they get in on the deal with Australia to make nuke subs based on US designs.

A nuclear sub is an attack sub, you don't use it for close in defence... it goes to the enemy waters and hunts for enemy ships and land targets. The 90 billion dollar French subs would have been ideal for the defence of Australia, but Nuke subs are needed to build the infrastructure to handle and operate nuclear powered vessels so the US can base subs and ships there too.

The British made up that excuse so they could save a few billion on their new carriers which is ironic because when they saved money on their new destroyers they have ruined their navy and require the support of other HATO navies to operate properly due to lack of support ships.

Anyway, the point that is relevant is that when the US is involved they will use your interests to satisfy their interests... in this case sell you billions of dollars of shit you don't need to fight an enemy that does not have to be your enemy if you just calm the **** down and use your head.

Australia is only now trying to patch up its economic relations with China that were damaged when Aussie demanded an investigation into the origins of covid...

Do you think that was really what Australia cared about, or was it the US pushing them so they could claim damages and demand money from China over something clearly created in one of the many US funded bio weapons labs around the planet.

India needs to be very careful... how long before the US offers Hornets and some old carriers to operate them from, and of course you would need to buy all the other aircraft... Hawkeye and helicopters and other weapons and equipment... it is going to get a damn sight more expensive than the cost of fixing the minor problems with an aircraft they already have.

You neither have the intent nor the ability to test your hypotheses empirically. You have made up your mind- use random incidents, if there are no incidents then invent them to validate your hypothesis

Russia operates MiG-29Ks on its carrier, you are the one claiming five separate crashes make the aircraft junk in need of replacement.

I am not demanding anything, I am just saying the fact that you want your country to replace something you just invested billions of dollars in because of four crashes and one accident due to birds is interesting.

Investigating accidents is only part of it, you then have to seek solutions to correct what is wrong so they don't happen again, if you are trying to suggest the engine is to blame then you need more information than that... are they being serviced properly with the correct parts... is there sabotage or corruption involved?

Rafales and Tegas and Hornets wont likely be able to operate from the Gorshkov, so if you want to get rid of the MiGs then you will likely get rid of the carrier... you might find the Russian Navy might take it as an extra carrier for which they have all compatible equipment and weapons and aircraft.

In the meantime you will spend billions on new planes and billions on new carriers whose operational costs will be enormous and I am sure there will still be problems but we wont hear about them... because the newspapers and reporters who shout out loudly about any problems or perceived problems with Russian stuff and keep it very quiet when it comes to expensive western stuff.

There were 10 reported cases of single engine landings of the Mig 29K because one of the engines invariably flamed out.

Well that obviously needs to be investigated because there is obviously something wrong there.

Corrosion resistant materials does not improve the quality of the airframe

Without corrosion resistant materials what you end up with is a bucket of rust not fit for purpose.

The engine, airframe and fly by wire of the Mig 29K are all below par.

You mentioned engine problems... how does that equate to problems with airframe and flight control system?

If the U.S can sell a pathetic aircraft like the F-35 why can't Russia. Now we are talking.

Russia imposes their products on no one. The US obliges its bitches to comply and feed the machine.

These issues related to the below par performance of the Mig 29K was raised with Mig. They have failed to provide any solution. They can't even provide maintenance services for the engines. Between 2010 and 2018 Russia could provide only 65 engines of which India had to reject or withdraw at least 40 from service due to problems.

What sources are you using for this information?

Black market is a convenient fall guy.

It was a genuine issue from the past... how do we know it is not an issue still?

The Mig 29K is operated by the navies of Russia and India only. So if you are saying that its parts are available in the black market then it's only because Russian navy personnel are selling them. If spare parts were indeed available in the black market then Mig 29K would not have had a 35% availability rate. Blind deification or blind castigation - both stupid..

Engine parts in the MiG-29K would be compatible with all RD-33s and the related RD-93 engine, and the other parts are not worlds apart from the parts on other MiG-29s.

Black market parts is when fake parts are sold as genuine parts and are bought because they are slightly cheaper than genuine parts so you can pretend you bought genuine parts and pocket the difference in price.

The obvious problem is that the parts wont really be up to spec and can fail... leading to crashes and accidents.

If the RD-33 is do damn reliable why didn't China use RD-33 to power all their single engine aircraft?

They are trying to make their own engines, but they are not exporting them so for exported planes they need an engine that has a proven record of doing the job reliably.

What are the various other Russian engines that were on offer to China?

If it was as bad as you suggest they would just use domestic engines instead.

Myanmar has grounded a large number of their JF-17 aircraft due to technical malfunction. Pakistani air force engineers brought to help solve the issues, failed.

Funny you said technical malfunction and not engine problem...

Jf-17 has no issues with its rd-93. It's reliable. But then it's a jet engine, if you want it to work you have to maintain it. You can use such thing that goes at very high temperatures and not spend money on maintaining it. Myanmar shoukd try maintaining an f-16. Just the request for spare parts will eat all their budget, let alone the spare part.

Germany is barely having an airforce with its costly typhoons that most don't even work. So now imagibe it on a carrier with salty water getting in daily...

China is switching for domestic stuff because it doesn't want to depend on others. Nothing to do with the reliability of russian stuff. Actually if russian engibes were so bad they wouldn't be buying su-35 to copy it and its engine.

If they don't want the MiG that is fine but if they were smart they should get together with France who are looking at a new 75K ton nuclear powered carrier with cats in about 10 years time.

It will take 10 years for them to negotiate a contract but I am sure France would love to build extra carriers even if the export model is slightly downgraded.

Russia is not America and wont abandon India if they don't buy Russian stuff.

I admit I am biased... I like the MiG, but I also like India and wish her the best and I don't think letting the US get her claws into you is the best for India.

You buy US aircraft and ships and they will tell you what you can or cannot do... look at them with your S-400 buys... which of course are none of their business.

Buy from France and you probably be better aircraft and ships and also less control but it wont be cheap.

I would hope France turns away from being Americas bitch and finds a bit of independence for itself in terms of relations, but it has a lot of habits it needs to get rid of... white european colonial habits I mean.

Instead of demonising Russia and China for treating other countries with respect and not trying to change or influence them... the west should recognise that that is how international relations should actually be with everyone and Russia will be happy to sell cheap energy, but it is going to take a while before they really trust you again... and understandibly so.

The US went ape shit at the rumour that Putin was offering bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan... imagine if it turned out Russia was supplying brand new long range sniper rifles and anti armour and MANPADS and ammo and equipment and lots and lots of money to the Taliban... the irony is that the Taliban probably have better accountants and are less likely to steal money than the Ukrainian politicians.

The US has stopped support and sales whenever they feel like yanking someone's chain. They have done it to Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia, and others.

They also never sell you what you want to buy, but what they want you to buy that is in their interests. You might want the F-16, but end up with the A-4. You might want the F-35, but you end up with the F-16. Etc.

If India wants to rely on buying military hardware from a vendor like that, good luck.

I doubt that India would ever give back the carrier to Russia.

Even if it is old it did not serve for long and it is anyway younger than the first 4 Nimitz class carriers and about the same age as the Wasp Amphibious assault ship (which has a similar displacement).

But for Russia it would be quite good news.

An additional carrier fully compatible with russian planes

I did not know about problems of the carrier itself. I thought that all the steam turbines were changed when the ship was modified for India).