The Russian navy’s only carrier, the 59,000-metric ton Admiral Kuznetsov, is being modified to enable operations of MiG-29K/KUB strike fighters against targets in Syria. The work is due to be completed within the next few months. During its first combat deployment, the carrier is likely to carry 15 fighters and a dozen Kamov helicopters. The latter may include a few Ka-52K Katran attack prototypes as well as Ka-31 airborne early warning & control rotorcraft. The deployment will last for up to three months, after which the ship will return to Russia for a major overhaul.
The Russians have been trying to move to the Fulcrum-K for a while now. They haven’t gotten the money to modernize the Su-33 fleet, and the Indian Navy has basically subsidized the development and production lines for the MiG-29K. It’s also a better fit for the Kuznetsov style carrier: they’re smaller and you can theoretically carry more of them.
The 29 is a gorgeous aircraft. Someone I was once with at an airshow was amazed at seeing it and asked “Why are we not buying those?!” instead of the F-35. So yeah, it leaves a impression.
History has proven the MiG-29 has this terrible habit of absorbing air to air missiles and then exploding. Probably not the best investment for an airforce to make. Still pretty though.
My understanding from people in the know is that in BVR, the western jet is going to win most of the time because of better missiles, better fire control, etc. Once it goes to the merge it’s anybody’s game.
The sticky bit is you have to survive long enough to merge.
There are always so many qualifiers with head to head type arguments. Is your plane supposed to have (or expected to have) AWACS? Data link? Is it a pure dogfight or is it heaters or radar missiles? Are you fuel limited? So many variables. If the Russians swapped equipment with the U.S. (say they had F-22s and we had Su-27s for this mind exercise) - yet it wasn’t done in a vacuum (the U.S. Su-27s still had their AWACS support and capability), would the Russians be any better off (maybe)?
My point is, the plane v. plane argument is pretty useless in reality if you don’t include the whole package of support, reliability, and training. That is the one thing that always struck me about Russian and Chinese aircraft carrier promo footage - their pace of sortie generation and overall capability seems way, way, way less than the orchestra that a Nimitz type carrier is capable of. That is why whenever I hear the Pentagon generals and military industrial complex beating the drum of “we are outclassed here” in an effort to get funding for the Next Big Thing™ and they roll some footage of a Russian plane doing a cobra or landing on an aircraft carrier…I just have to roll my eyes a bit.
Of course, why build aircraft carriers when you can just make airbases out of reefs? So there’s that.
FWIW, my comment was basically assuming that I’ve got my lawn dart, snark’s got his fulcrum, and we fly at each other all things equal (same altitude, speed, etc.). I should be able to detect him at a similar or better range, have better SA while doing so, and get a missile off that has a higher Pk faster than him.
Obviously operationally this doesn’t happen all that often. All the factors you mentioned change the calculus in different ways.
Also are you insinuating that the S-400 isn’t the best missile system ever, and can literally shoot down the moon?
BUT IF YOU PUT ONE IN WASHINGTON D.C. IT CAN SHOOT DOWN AIRCRAFT TAXING IN NEW YORK BECAUSE THE CURVATURE OF THE EARTH IS A [email protected]#$ -Youtube
At times I’m still amazed that the Russians still have the money to keep the kuznetsov. I remember seeing a chart of the decline of their navy since the wall fell and was surprised they kept it in the water.
