Mig-29 can compete but it is limited by its range and low amount of weapons.
Of course, because if 8 missiles is not going to be good enough then obviously 12 is the magic number that will make everything OK.
Su27 can fire 10 r-27ER which gives it more chances to hit the mig than the mig has with its 2 r27R. It also has a better radar.
The Su-27 can't carry 10 R-27ER missiles. It can carry a maximum of 6 R-27 type missiles, and can carry a maximum of 6 R-73 type missiles.
If it was a dogfight with R-73 only missiles then the MIG-29 and Su-27 have the same weapon load potential.
Interesting to note that all MiG-29s were shot down in close-quarters turning dogfights. All kills were by means of the R-73. R-27s fired by both MiGs and Su-s on various occassions failed to find their mark.
Which means that potentially the MiGs had the same armament as the Flankers as both could carry 6 R-73s as their max weapon load of that weapon type.
One uneventful incident occured when two Su-27s were intercepted over Eritrean airspace by four MiGs. The lead Su-27 was targeted by the MiGs which fired three R-27s head-on. The Lead evaded the missiles and then proceeded to engage all four MiGs by firing four R-27s in quick succession. The missiles missed and the MiGs left in a hurry.
But I don't understand... the bigger more powerful Su-27s should not have been surprised by those MiGs like that... doesn't it have bigger radar and IRST and it will do all the attacking from long range where the MiG is vulnerable and useless?
Although eritrean MiG-29As have numerical advantage, Ethiopians well use one importand advantage against MiG-29A. Data link and group networking. Su-27 fighters share their radar and IRST pictures and have good situational avarenes. Russian mercenary in Su-27UB back sit work as group commander and coordinate their work through data link. IAF also use well their IFDL group networking with their Su-30K well against USAF F-15C fighters in their first exercise.
So the primary advantage of the Su-27 in this situation is probably hardware already built in to MiG-29M2 and MiG-35s... right.
MiG-29 was aerodinamicaly and technologicaly the same as Su-27. But they were made by different paradigms of air combat. MiG-29 was designed by old paradigm of GCI directed interception point defense fighter, the same as MiG-21 and MiG-23 and in modern warfare this old paradigm doesn't work anymore.
Of course it does... HATO still use it... the difference is that the guy in the van is in an AWACS aircraft...
On the other hand MiG-31 and Su-27 were made by new modern paradigm of group networking and coordinating with AWACS and group leader through IFDL and data link networking with ground command posts as well.
New paradigm my arse... they copied the Soviet system of ground control intercept, but because they wanted to take it to other countries because they are aggressive and invaders, rather than defenders they had to make it more mobile by putting the guy in the van into an AWACS aircraft instead... which the Soviets already did to defend their arctic and far east reaches...
Russian AF is no more Soviet AF, which have thousand of fighters, used with old paradigm of GCI directed interception. RuAF decided for the new paradigm, because they have far smaller number of fighters available and MiG-29 simply can not fit in.
Yeah, because while they can make Su-27s compatible it is too hard to make MiGs compatible even though they did it with the MiG-31....
For goodness sake... the MiGs didn't have it because they didn't need it.... do you really think that is the reason they didn't buy more MiGs?
Apart from this datalink sharing thing the Flankers did they were otherwise inferior to the upgrades MIG was developing and getting rejected by the Russian Air Force for.
IFDL can be installed on modernized mig-29 with new computers pretty easily.
Very easily... if that was a problem for Russia.
It's like those iraqi t-72 using old steel made APFSDS when they could have sold them them some tungsten made apsfds to stand a chance against US tanks.
I rather suspect if the Soviets had any idea the Iraqis would be using them against the Americans they probably would have given them better stuff...
To be clear, I am not against the deployment of the MiG in the VKS, I just try to make sense of the fact that they, until now, have shown so little interest for it.
If they were interested in cheaper simpler planes then they would be buying MiG-29M2s instead of MiG-35s... they are not.
Yes, I said it is an acceptable range, assuming you also have other fighters with longer legs capable of neutralising similar enemy planes.
Why do you need longer ranged fighters?
In the middle of the arctic there will be nothing nearby to defend. In european Russia the next airbase wont be 1,000km away.
The centerline tank goes with them essentially all of the time, maybe they have many of them, maybe they still like having that extra fuel for the initial climb.
I would think operationally they would carry all their weapon pylons full of weapons and suitable jammers, but whether they carry the centreline fuel tank or not is another question... and also whether they come back with it in a war situation is another question too.
It would make no sense to load the planes so much and wear missiles down in peace time operations or when missions do not demand a huge A2A loadout.
That is exactly right but also applies to war time too... during combat operations you don't normally see them covered in weapons with every pylon being used for munitions... if four missiles don't work then 8 probably wont either and if four don't work why would you want the drag and weight of 8 more if your missiles are clearly being defeated and you need to use your gun?
The original point was to show that ordnance carrying / range capabilities of Flankers and MiGs are so apart that it is understandable that the later are being actually replaced by the former.
Or were they waiting for a suitable MiG to start buying and have only gotten till now to get one. They took the SMT fighters when they became available... they were not obliged to... they could have offered them to India or some other country at a reduced price if they really didn't want them. The Navy bought the naval Fulcrums pretty quickly when India bought theirs... it seems when they get the opportunity to get them cheaper they are taking them... but no matter how cheap they were if they didn't want them I don't think they would take them at any price.
I didn't mix up anything. Su-33 have limited max take off mass when using carrier ski jump. From ground air bases Su-33 could take off with its max take off mass.
But those takeoff masses are different for the different launch positions... why else would they bother with the longer waist position takeoff location... they could just make them directly behind the two short takeoff positions... those barriers raise up to protect things behind it from jet wash, so if there was a limit for weight for taking off they would free up a lot more deck space by having four positions at the front two tandem locations. At the moment the waist launch position is in the middle of the angled landing deck so when it is used it can't land aircraft. Using two tandem launch positions would mean landing could continue to take place while launching four aircraft at a time.
Internl fuel is internal weights and have nothing to do with external weight. Planes are designed with full internal fuel, no one design plane capabilities with a quarter of internal fuel.
Lots of planes cannot land at full or near full takeoff weights... the undercarriage can carry a plane for takeoff at MTOW but not the force of a landing at or near MTOW. Few of the 9g manouverable fighters can manouver at 9g with a full fuel and full external weapon load.
Su-33 ca carry up to 6,5 tons of external weapon load, but usual load is far lower.
Can it? Describe that payload for me... most likely the wing tips will be Sorbitsa jamming pods and the next four pylons will be R-73s, which leaves 6 weapons pylons left with about 6.1 tons to fit... it doesn't carry external fuel tanks and I have never seen it with anything bigger than a 500kg bomb, or a 350kg R-27 AAM.
Let say 4 x 500 kg bombs is 2 tons, 4 x R-27 is 1,4 tons, 2 x R-73 is 0,25 tons and 2 ECM pods Sorbtsia-S brings to around 4,5 tons. Still cca 2 tons less than full capacity. But usually it is even lower.
Never seen one with four x 500kg bombs and R-27s at the same time.
Su-33 is a fighter, if they wanted a bomber the MiG-29K is actually much better equipped for the job.
Engines were payed, produced and delivered. They could either install them in Su-33 or store them in warehouse and install them later.
What a terrible waste of money at a time when they are talking about unifying avionics and engines and radar across the Flanker fleet they get some custom made engines for the tiny force of planes that will most likely operate from land bases anyway.
According to general-major Kozhin, Su-33 will be with the second stage of modernization bring to the level of Su-30SM and in this stage, they will get new engines. This stage didn't start yet, so they most probably wait for Su-30SM modernization to Su-30SM2 level, where Bars-R radar will be replaced by Irbis. Those Bars-R radars could than replace old N001 radars.
I can't be exactly the same as the Su-30SM upgrade because all Su-33s are single seaters.
Hand me down systems... about what the Navy normally gets...
Agree, both crashes were due to arrester gear problems. Difference was, that Su-33 land on the deck and capture the wire and in that case he could not save the plane.
But that is critical... one ran out of fuel, but as you say the other one has tons of fuel always so it crashed because it is too heavy to land safely on that aircraft carrier...
If pilot doesn't capture wire, he simply take off and do another circle.
Should be the same for both aircraft but what has been said here is that the MiG pilot ran out of fuel, but the Flanker pilot crashed into the water because the wire broke... which should never happen... that is the whole point of the angled deck... the wire breaking should have led to the pilot essentially applying full AB and raising his nose and climbing away and then coming around to try again, but it sounds like the Flanker was not able to recover when the cable broke and ended up crashing into the water... which is a serious issue because even when the arrester gear is working fine occasionally the cables break... they simply don't last forever... they carry them in large numbers and they are easy to replace because they do break from time to time... but if you are going to lose a flanker every time it breaks when they land then you are going to lose a lot of flankers... that is just too expensive....
In Syria Flankers did exactly this, loitering for hours over combat zones and drop bombs when and where needed.
When did Flankers in Syria engage in dogfights?
If MiG-29KR reach their expectations, than navy would simply retire Su-33 and wouldn't buy new engines and order second stage of modernization. They will simply use both.
If that were true why would they by MiG-29s in the first place... they already chose the Su-33... why bother with a smaller lighter shorter ranged aircraft... like the USN did when they replaced their F-14s with F-18s?
Point is, that MiG-35 have to leave behind old paradigm, by which MiG-29 was build and to be designed according new paradigm, which air force now use and to fit in it.
You might be a bit confused... but Russia does not have enough AWACS platforms to control all her fighters and the ground based IADS is already very extensive anyway. Considering the Russians are working on super long range weapons to shoot down AWACS platforms how long before HATO does the same... does it really make a lot of sense moving from a ground based control system to a super vulnerable and super expensive air based one?
For sure it will find its theatre of operation and work well with new Flankers, Su-57 and Foxhounds. After all MiG-31 is big and expensive, but fit well in their concept and are upgraded to BM level and will be in use for decades.
The fact that the MiG-29KR already is fully integrated into the Navys SIGMA battle management system and can datalink information to ships and subs and satellites and other aircraft within the group I am not sure what else MiG can do to fix their stupid short range little pieces of shit...
The MiG-29SMT didn't fit well into the force in Syria because they weren't integrated into the Russian mobile network system is no great surprise... they were designed and made for Algeria... why would they be linked in with Russian AF equipment... the real question you should ask is why are the RuAF so cheap or so stupid as to not upgrade the SMTS to operate with their other systems when they took them over... really sounds like a level playing field...
Normal procedure would be to send a buddy-buddy refueling mig-29 and send them to Hmeimim or in a friendly airport like Cyprus or Egypt.
Normal procedures come from experience... there should have been a couple of fuel tankers operating near by in case they were needed or at least within 20 minutes on call if needed, but clearly they didn't plan for what happened... hopefully lesson learned...