Wings of RUSSIA Mig 29K NAVY FIGHTER палубный истребитель МиГ 29К

[ToonandBBfan]

The MiG 29K is quite a formidable aircraft

[ladybuggangster1]

тшсу

ещеефдн тшыу

[15thsquadron01]

I say bring back the F-14D Switch out the new engines to the bigger GE-404 smokeless engines!

[Tabsinlab]

2:23, mini cobra...

[tommytmt]

I just don't understand why in the world people take sideshow videos and then put them on YouTube ... A video site. If you don't have something that's actually a VIDEO(i.e. moving pictures)to share, DON'T put it on here! YouTube is NOT a picture site, there are plenty of those all around the internet! I can google these same pictures of Sukhoi's and they'd probably be better. Don't just put something in here just to put something on here. I'm talking to you TyphoonUSSR. Please take these down a

[cirvine11]

I just needed to jump in and comment about the Super Tomcat comments below. While I despise the clown Cheney-the Super Tomcat project being cancelled was not killed because of "rivalries". It was killed because the F-14D was expensive to maintain. And-it the post Cold War world the USN was not thought to need all that expensive capability. They-rightly or wrongly-wanted to streamline the logistics of maintainence at sea. If tensions return-we can always design a sea going version of the F-22...

[Analog32]

Great plane & Pilot !!

[zilzila007]

awesome footage

[GDRish]

USSR-сила!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ahamster1]

looks a lot sexier than the Su-33, love its paintjob

[VideoRoom207]

I just love the way Mig-29s look

[MegaBear85]

Russian power!!! Вперёд!

[StiviGun1]

If they switch the Su-33 with the MiG-29K, they make a huge mistake. The same mistake the Americans made when they switched the F-14 with the F-18. The Su-33 has everything a naval interceptor must have: a huge range, much bigger weapons payload, higher speed & the maneuverability is at least the same, even though it's heavier. But the payload, speed & range are the most important features of a naval interceptor. So if they replace the Su-33 with the MiG-29K, they make a huge mistake.

[TonyFirelli]

@StiviGun1 Not really a big mistake, they are about equal

[StiviGun1]

@TonyFirelli I already enumerated the areas in which the Su-33 is far superior, so how are they equal?

[RRVCrinale]

@StiviGun1 Which one came first, again, the Su-33 or the MiG-29K?

I'd kind of hope that when you change aircraft you have more updated, more state-of-the-art fighters, as far as I know...

[StiviGun1]

@RRVCrinale The first that came was the Su-33. The MiG company also presented their design, at the time, but the soviet navy went with the Su-33 because it had bigger range, bigger weapons load. That's what a naval fighter primarily needs: big range, big weapons payload & maneuverability.. Now, the Su-33 is not more agile than the MiG-29K (nor less agile) but it has a much bigger range & weapons load. That's why I think, replacing it with the MiG-29K is a mistake, They will make the same mistake

[StiviGun1]

@RRVCrinale the Americans made when they replaced the F-14 with the F-18 Super Hornet.

[MrSabot88]

@StiviGun1 No need for a huge aircraft carrier as a SU 33 simply requires a larger aircraft carrier and also less can be carried given its size. The net gain of SU33 and a larger carrier compared to a smaller carrier carrying Mig 29s' is not overwhelming as u suggest.

The Mig 29 is ideal for power projection in a task force situation especially when the opposition isn't all that credible and the F14s' u speak of were underpowered, expensive and complex to say the least.

[StiviGun1]

@MrSabot88 What I know and what every military tactician will tell you is that a naval fighter needs to have big range, large weapons payload and maneuverability. The MiG-29 and F-18 have maneuverability but they don't have range and weapons payload. Su-33 and F-14 had all of these 3 characteristics. The Su-33 still has them.

As for the F-14, it was not at all as complex as you say and the Super Tomcat variants would've dealt with the problems the Tomcat had.

[MrSabot88]

@StiviGun1 I don't but what 'every military tactician' argument !

U are trying to sell the idea that there is no alternative to the large carrier heavy fighter combo? The answer to that is there is a more simple, cheaper and effective alternative. U can make all kinds of assumptions but the fact remains that the RN, Indian navy and others have seen the alternative option as being more suitable. The F14 was a heavy n complex beast n has been put out to pasture - except for Top Gun movie fans!

[StiviGun1]

@MrSabot88 There are other options that can be used, but none of them is as effective as that combo that you mentioned. I once talked to a guy who worked for the US navy and he told me that because the US has given up its long range fighters, the F-14s, now, it doesn't have the necessary means to fight a naval war against another military power. 1 or 2 of the Super Tomcat variants should have been selected as the USN navy fighters, not the short range and under speed F-18.

[MrSabot88]

@StiviGun1 The AIM54 n Hughes APG9 radar was good for its time but no longer the answer for BARCAP and missile defence. The same can be done with R77 etc but with support from carrier AWACS. The fact remains that the USSR is no more n an aggressive state think china still hasn't the ability to launch ssonic ship killing missiles by the likes of the TU22 or TU126 at long range. big carriers are vulnerable n smaller carriers offer better chances of survival.with more options.

[StiviGun1]

@MrSabot88 Regarding to the AIM-54 and the APG9 radar, in specially the radar, those were only used for the F-14 Tomcat. The Super Tomcat 21 for instance would've had an AESA radar, TVC and supercruise capability. Right now, no aircraft in the USN has the capability to shoot down cruise missiles, like the F-14 could do.

As for the Chinese, they DO have a supersonic ballistic missile that can destroy a carrier from 1500 km away.

Big carriers are very important and they offer great firepower but

[MrSabot88]

@StiviGun1 The F 14 airframe/concept was. Dead end n time to retire. Yes in a few years the MiG 29 will have AESA and the range of the MiG isn't too bad with the Klimov RD33- 3 and bigger internal tanks. Naval SU33 is a large aircraft and 1.5 MiGs could be carried for one. Also nations like India would be operating carriers relatively close to their shores n the Mig29 offers a good option with shore based air power. The USN has the Standard 3 SAM for anti missile work. F18 aesa AMRAAM still Ok

[StiviGun1]

@MrSabot88 Look, for shore based operations, smaller carriers with smaller fighters that have shorter ranges, is OK. But if you want to project firepower, you need fighters that have long ranges and large weapons payloads. These fighters must also have the capability to conduct naval warfare (against other ships) and to defend the carrier from different threats. Right now, the F-18, with its short range and low speed can't do these 2 things. The Super Tomcats would've been the correct choice for

[Jospehporta]

@StiviGun1 You just love to write stupid shit. Super Tomcat is one of the more stupid things you bullshit about.

[StiviGun1]

@Jospehporta No, the Super Tomcat was the aircraft that should've been adopted by the Navy, not the short range, low speed F-18 that has no ability to perform its main job of protecting the carrier.

As for you, you're just a pathetic loser who spends all his time stalking people on YouTube. It's funny that you follow me on vids that I posted comments months ago... You really are laughable.

[StiviGun1]

@MrSabot88 the US navy, not the under ranged and under speed F-18. And the MiG-29K will also have very reduced capabilities in naval warfare and carrier protection compared with the Su-33.

[StiviGun1]

@MrSabot88 And as for the F-14, yeah, it had to be retired, but I;m talking about the Super Tomcat variants, like the Super Tomcat 21.

[StiviGun1]

@MrSabot88 of course, they need protection. But there's no other weapons system that can deliver the firepower a super-carrier can. In my opinion, Russia makes a mistake by replacing the Su-33 with MiG-29K. The MiG-29 doesn't have the range and the weapons payload the Su-33 has. Therefore, it's not suited as a naval fighter.

[bwana31]

@StiviGun1 Russia (currently) and India (near future) both operate/will operate only STOBAR type carriers. Lacking catapults, these carrier types cannot launch fully-loaded aircraft. So, it doesn't matter that the SU-33 can carry a bigger payload, since it can't take off from the carrier with it. Given the limitation of the carrier types used, this gives the MiG-29K, with its smaller size, and lower cost a big advantage over the SU-33.

[StiviGun1]

@bwana31 I don't know what STOBAR carriers means. But the Su-33 can take off from the Kuznetzov carriers and the Russians will build 6 more of them in the next decade.

As for Su-33 vs MIG-29K, it all depends what you want to use your naval power for. The MIG-29K is cheaper, but it lacks the performances of the Su-33. So it depends on what you want to use your navy for. If you want to project firepower at great ranges, then you need big aircraft carriers with heavy fighters that have big ranges.

[bwana31]

@StiviGun1 STOBAR is an acronym. It stands for Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery. It refers to carriers like the Kuznetzov and the Vikramaditya that have "ski jumps" and arrester gear. This allows the operation of conventional aircraft (as opposed to vertical take off/landing planes like the Harrier) from a carrier. Because STOBAR carriers lack a catapult, planes cannot launch from them with a full weapons load. This limits them to a fleet defense instead of power projection role.

[StiviGun1]

@bwana31 So you're saying that the Su-33 can't take off from the Kuznetsov carrier with their full weapons payload? I didn't know that. But it still has twice the range of the MiG-29K and that makes more suited for power projection. The important feature for power projection is range how far can the aircraft strike. The problem with the MiG-29K and the F-18 is that they can't conduct operations deep into enemy territory. The Su-33 can do that and so could the F-14.

[bwana31]

@StiviGun1 You are correct that a long range is a valuable asset for a power projection aircraft. But, if it can't carry the bomb load it needs to accomplish its mission once it reaches its target, it's pretty much a worthless advantage. Also, I respectufully disagree with your assessment of the F-18. It has conducted lots of successful long range bombing missions over Iraq and Afghanistan

[StiviGun1]

@bwana31 Well, to be fair, the Su-33 can carry enough ordnance to fulfill its mission. I mean, if the MiG-29K can do it with its smaller payload, I don't see why the Su-33 couldn't do it.

As for F-18, yes, it has conducted long range bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan, but those are countries that practically don't have an air defense network. In order to conduct long range missions, the F-18 needs to be refueled in mid air which complicates things and it also makes things more dangerous for the

[StiviGun1]

@bwana31 plane and its pilot if it operates over a country that has fighter jets and a decent air defense network. The F-18 is only good at bombing countries that don't have any means to defend against it.

[bwana31]

@StiviGun1 I have to differ with you there. The F-18 has the most powerful AESA radar in the buisiness. The chief advantage of this type of radar is that it makes your plane much harder to detect.

[StiviGun1]

@bwana31 Avionics are not a problem. They can be installed on any type of platform and every single Super Tomcat variant proposed by Grumman would've had an AESA radar. They also would've had much higher speed, range and weapons payload. The Super Tomcat 21 variant would've also had 3D TVC so it would've been extremely maneuverable. And it would've also been cheaper than the F-18 development since they would've been built on the existing F-14D airframes.

[bwana31]

@StiviGun1 Both range/payload and cost appear to be concerns for the U.S. Navy as well. They've announced they will procure the F-35C when it is ready because it will have greater range and payload than any F-18 version. However, they will also continue to procure the F-18 Super Hornet which will be significantly less expensive. They will be phasing out the older A, B, and C versions of the F-18 (i.e.. the "regular hornet")

[StiviGun1]

@bwana31 Well, the fact that they wanted the F-35 shows that they were concerned more about cost than about performance. The idea of having one cheap fighter that can fulfill both the navy and air force's role was appealing to many idiots who have no idea what military means. The truth is the F-35 is not good either. The C variant has a bigger range, but it's too slow and its payload capacity is very small. The Super Tomcat would've been the best solution for the US navy.

[bwana31]

@StiviGun1 You are correct that power projection requires big aircraft carriers and planes with big ranges. It also requires planes that can carry a lot of ordinance. You are correct that the Su-33 beats the MiG-29K in these areas. The other thing power projection requires is a catapult system. Without it, planes cannot take off from the carrier with a full weapons load. That negates a lot of the Su-33's advantages.

[StiviGun1]

@bwana31 Well, the Su-33 may not be able to take off with its full weapons payload, but it does have a much bigger range which gives it a far bigger reaching capability. And that's what a naval fighter needs. Even if it can carry only the MiG-29K weapons payload, it's still better because of its huge range which increases if the payload is decreased. So it can strike targets at even higher ranges than it could if it carried its full weapons payload.

[bwana31]

@StiviGun1 You are also correct that, even operating from a STOBAR type carrier, the Su-33 has a longer range and better maneuverability than the MiG-29K. But, the MiG-29K is cheaper to purchase and operate. It's also smaller, so you can operate more of them from the same carrier. It's also lighter, so it may be able to take off from a STOBAR carrier with more weapons than the Su-33 can, even though the Su-33 can carry more weapons than the MiG-29K in absolute terms.

[StiviGun1]

@bwana31 Yes, the MiG-29K has the main advantage that it's cheaper and I believe that's the main reason why it will be used to replace the Su-33. But if we talk about performance, heavy fighters with big range are the way to go.

As for payload, I don't know if a MiG-29K can take off with a bigger weapons payload capacity. What is its payload capacity? But even if it could, that would decrease its range even further, thus making it even more unsuited as a fighter used for power projection.

[bwana31]

@StiviGun1 I can't claim to have any special insight into Russian naval strategy. I'm just guessing they decided that buying more smaller, cheaper planes, even at the sacrifice of range, was more beneficial than contunuing to buy fewer larger more expensive long-range planes.

[StiviGun1]

@bwana31 Well, my opinion that the only reason why the opted for smaller, cheaper fighters for their navy is cost. That's it. They just don't have the money to acquire more Su-33s so they turn to cheaper solutions. The cost, in my opinion is the only way they do this. As for their strategies, well, carrier employment doctrines are about the same for everybody. That's why I think the only reason they go with the MiG-29K is the cost.

[bwana31]

@StiviGun1 The fact that they had an export customer (India) already committed to the plane didn't hurt, either.

[StiviGun1]

@bwana31 You're right, this is another reason.

[StiviGun1]

@bwana31 If you want just to protect your waters and to fight a naval war against an aggressor, then smaller carriers with smaller ranged fighters are good enough.

[bwana31]

@StiviGun1 Compared with the MiG-29K, the Su-33's maximum takeoff weight is 50% higher; fuel capacity is more than double; and minimum speed is lower. However, the MiG-29K carries more air-to-ground munitions than the Su-33. It also has more advanced avionics. The Su-33 is more expensive and physically larger than the MiG-29K, limiting the numbers able to be deployed on an aircraft carrier. (Source: Wikipedia)

[StiviGun1]

@bwana31 Well, yeah, Su-33's maximum take off weight is higher, but that's because it carries more fuel which increases its range. As for the minimum speed, I don't know why that's important. As for avionics and air-ground munitions, those can be placed on any platform, the SU-33 can be modified to carry them. As for numbers carried, how many more MiG-29Ks can be carried on a carrier compared to Su-33s? I don't think the number big enough to make a significant difference.

[bwana31]

@StiviGun1 I believe minimum speed is important for air-to-ground attack (pretty hard to hit a ground target when you're doing Mach 2+) and carrier landing. On a STOBAR carrier, it may also be beneficial for take off. While advanced avionics and ground attack weapons could theoretically be fitted to the Su-33m that could require extensive (and expensive) modifications to the airframe. The MiG-29 already has these for no extra cost. I believe that was the driving factor behind the decision.

[StiviGun1]

@bwana31 I don't see how low speed is important for carrier take off since high speed is what you need there in order to achieve necessary lift to take off.

As for avionics, I believe modifying an already existing platform is cheaper than building a totally new platform.

[bwana31]

@StiviGun1 It's not low speed, its minimum speed at which the aircraft can operate and maintain stability. Since the take off speed from a ski-jump is significantly less than from a catapult, I'm speculating that a plane with stability at a lower speed might provide an advantage. However, I have no facts to back that up. And, the MiG-29K has already proven capable of taking off from the Kuznetzov.

[StiviGun1]

@bwana31 Well, from what I know, the MiG-29K doesn't have better stability at lower speeds. The Su-33's wing area is larger, thus it has better low speed stability.

[bwana31]

@StiviGun1 Changing the avionics isn't as simple as swapping out one radar for another. If the radar is significantly different in weight, it will change the plane's center of gravity. Also, modern avionics aren't limited to a radar in the nose of the plane.  They are integrated throughout the airframe. Therefore, upgrading the Su-33 could potentially require extensive modifications to the entire plane -- something that would likely be prohibitively expensive

[StiviGun1]

@bwana31 I wasn't talking just about radar, I know what avionics are. But it's still cheaper to modify an already existing design than to build a completely new one. And I don't think the MiG-29K's radar is heavier than the 1 Su-33 carries so you could put the more modern radar from the MiG-29K on the Su-33 if the MiG-29K's radar is more advanced. Just like with the Super Tomcat, I believe that modifying already existing Su-33s can be modified to carry more advanced avionics at a lower price.

[bwana31]

@StiviGun1 I also think the decision to go with the MiG-29K reflects a change in naval strategy. The Su-33 was designed as an air-to-air combat plane only because that's what the defense ministry said it wanted at the time. When MiG lost the competition to Sukhoi, it designed the MiG-29K as a multi-role aircraft, apparently in hope of a change in Russian naval strategy. Their patience appears to have paid off. The Mig-29K now at least conveys the impression that it can do more for less.

[StiviGun1]

@bwana31 Well, what you say here was exactly the Americans' reason behind adopting the F-18. That the F-14 didn't have the same air-ground strike capabilities. But the truth is the F-14 could've been modified to reach at least the same capability in air-ground role. This is valid for Su-33 as well. An Su-33 modified to have ground-attack capabilities offer much more than the MiG-29K. Its range and weapons payload are assets that the MiG-29K will never match.

[bwana31]

@StiviGun1 The U.S. Navy already had a strike fighter at the time, the A-6 intruder. The Hornet offered the perceived advantage of on-the-fly switchover from fighter to attack mode, something that the F-14 did not. From a marketing point of view, the Super Tomcat suffered from the perception that it duplicated the Navy's existing strike capabilities and did not include the latest innovations that the Hornet did.

[StiviGun1]

@bwana31 Well, that perception was wrong. That's what happens when people who have no idea about weapons systems and the doctrines of employing them take such decisions. Every single Super Tomcat variant proposed would've had at least the same strike capabilities as the F-18 but with much better A-A fighting capabilities and much bigger range. The current F-18 simply doesn't have what it takes to protect the carrier and that's the main job of a naval fighter.

[bwana31]

@StiviGun1 Political factors also played a huge role. For many years, the congressional district where Grumman (make of the F-14) is located was represented by Joseph Addabbo, a democrat. He was a staunch opponent of the Regan arms build-up. But, also staunchly opposed any attempt to cancel any Grumman arms programs. This built up enmity with several key politicians that rubbed off on Grumman.

[StiviGun1]

@bwana31 Yeah, I know about this. That's why the Dick Cheney ordered all Grumman fighters production to be stopped. That's how idiotic politicians are. They actually care more about their own shitty rivalries than about their own country's security. This is a problem that Russia and China don't have. They always choose the best weapons system available based on the weapons systems performances. This is something the Americans stopped doing since 1962, right after the Missile Crises.

[Saxe333]

@StiviGun1 Sorry your wrong, they dont pick based on performance in China, its just about low cost/high quantity although thats started to change.

[StiviGun1]

@Saxe333 In China and Russia, the performances of the weapons systems are taking into consideration much more than in the US. In the US, there's a long practice of bashing the most powerful weapons systems (like the F-14 and F-111), while in China and Russia this problem doesn't exist. So I would say that in China, weapons systems are chosen based on performances. Much more than in the US anyway.

[bwana31]

@StiviGun1 It took time for political pressure to build up. But, things came to a head some 20-odd years later when the Super Tomcat was under consideration and Addabbo had long-since passed away. Dick Cheney disparagingly dismissed the Super Tomcat as a "jobs program." (of course he didn't mention that it was a jobs program for an overwhelmingly democratic district). It was the build-up of this political pressure over two decades that really sounded the death knell for the Super Tomcat.

[StiviGun1]

@bwana31 "Jobs program"... Every weapons program is a jobs program in a capitalist country. This was just a pathetic excuse to cancel the Super Tomcat program. The Tomcat was one of the few American fighters that the Russians really feared and respected. And the idiot Dick Cheney ruined it because of his personal rivalries. He simply let the USN without any asset to protect the multi billion dollars carriers which are an indispensable asset for the US power projection.

[bwana31]

@StiviGun1 I also think the decision to go with the MiG-29K reflects a change in naval strategy. The Su-33 was designed as an air-to-air combat plane only because that's what the defense ministry said it wanted at the time. When MiG lost the competition to Sukhoi, it designed the MiG-29K as a multi-role aircraft, apparently in hope of a change in Russian naval strategy. Their patience appears to have paid off. The MiG-29K now at least conveys the impression that it can do more for less.

[Mtk711s]

@StiviGun1 with 3 external fuel tanks Mig 29k has the same range, bigger weapons payload - yeah but Mig29k is smaller so u can have more Migs than Su33 on board..,Mig also has better thrust/weight ratio(0.97 - 0.83), he is slower for 100km/h but after all: 1. Su33 is more expensive and physically larger. 2.MiG-29K carries more air-to-ground munitions than the Su-33. 3. Mikoyan fighter has more advanced avionics and is capable of a wider range of missions, including strike operations!

[StiviGun1]

@Mtk711s With 3 external fuel tanks, the MiG-29K's weapons load is much smaller, not bigger... And how many more MiGs can you put on a carrier compared to the Su-33? It's not like you can put twice as much, so their smaller size is not an advantage. The MiG-29K doesn't carry more air-ground weapons, where did you get that? At least not from quantity point of view. As for avionics, those can be put on any platform, it is the basic performance of the platform that matters.

[TommasoTelli]

Grande mitico MiG29, anke in ver. navale!

[tutu1234]

Mig-29k is state of the art Aircraft unlike ny other, its a Naval version of Mig-35 with PESA radar with potential of AESA ZUK-AE radar. Indian Navy is operating this amazing aircraft with majority of Asian forces still operating vintage A/Cs. This aircraft has an amazing fly-by-wire Cockpit- youtube D O T c o m /watch?v=GwScnO4rS9I . Awesome aircraft! :D

[signupful]

@tutu1234 why russian not change thier aircraft design they use always same design even if you watch new steatlh fighter of russia and india they look like su33

[Mtk711s]

@signupful cuz it is not a fuckin` automobile industry which is selling new shit every single month!! It`s a military!!!

[looxgood]

@tutu1234 Vintage? China is running Su-27 and Japan and Korea, and Singapore has F-16 / F-2 and F-15s...I think Mig-29K is still not up to par aginst F-2 of Japan.

[zil157]

Looks like Kuznetsov carrier has a steam engine and uses coal to boil it ^)))

[zil157]

Mig-29K is a representative of other kind of fighters than Su-33. They cannot be compared.

[praviilon]

nice video and great plane, much better than su-33

[2129261184]

@praviilon Keep dreaming.