Talking bollocks thread #4

TR1 was rabid in his denial of the refurbishment of the Nahimov. All of this alleged knowledge is worth sh*t if it is encrusted with
bias. He did not get any sort of abuse on this forum. He was just a whiny little b*tch who staged a drama queen exit. Goodbye
and good riddance.

kvs wrote:TR1 was rabid in his denial of the refurbishment of the Nahimov.   All of this alleged knowledge is worth sh*t if it is encrusted with
bias.   He did not get any sort of abuse on this forum.   He was just a whiny little b*tch who staged a drama queen exit.   Goodbye
and good riddance.

I got in a "contrast of opinions" with him short time ago somewhere else. In general he participates quite little and only with very good contributions, but he seems particularly critical of MoD policies. I got some nice backlash from several other Russian or Slavic members when I stated that IMHO the risk management of Russian MIC is quite good. That is a topic I have professional qualification to talk about, but many people said that the MoD is always saying shit about delivery and commissioning dates that are never true and so on, which was actually my point. Many Russian and Slavic people in general have a level of pessimism, mistrust and bitterness about the capabilities of their countries and governments that is too close to inferiority complex to be healthy, to be quite honest. The US mindset is the exact opposite and is a worse, more dangerous kind of blindness, but still I think many people in Russia, among which you need to count so many USSR nostalgics, do not give due credit to the raising of their country and military from shithole level into superpower in mere 20 years. I would really love to see so many critics achieving 1/1000th of that in their lives...

Indeed, the whiny delusional loser syndrome. But over the last 20 years it has become apparent that both old and young Russians are
moving away from this "better in the west, Russia fail" BS. There are a lot of such western fanbois on the web but they are
nothing more than a sycophant fringe. I bet many of them are Nahalny supporters. I have written off all the other "Slavic brothers"
since they are stuck in long term delusional degeneration like Ukria. Their opinions about Russia are worth less than shit. They have
an inferiority complex and project all of their own inadequacies onto Russia. The ex-Soviet limitrophe statelets are all like this so it is
not an exclusive Slavic thing.

Russia's MoD does not talk trash and does not PR hype any project. That is why we had the plywood prop imbecility coming out
when the Su-75 was demonstrated for the first time. If it was some western project it would have been trumpeted as if it
was already flying before the design drafts were completed. The F-35 is an example of "western superiority".

There was a great example of that in the film about the creation of the Aurus car. According to the project manager the suppliers were not very keen to work work with them until the new car was presented at the inaugoration of the President. After that they were lining up, begging to take part in the project.

marcellogo wrote:

Isos wrote:It is. For the US, their is the mainland US and the rest of the world.

US bombed the former Yugoslavia it was part of.

They bombed the french back in 1945.

They are trying to get friendly with Vietnam which they bombed using more bombs than during WW2.

They bombed most of the south american countries during their CIA sponsored coups.

They are less trustworthy than a prostitute. They would bomb their moms for their own profit.

    but

Yes, that's because Croatia trusted France for the supply of fighters, Germany for their howitzers, produce by licence their high end wheeleed APC from Finland and for a lot of the rest, beginning from the Navy, do it for itself.

From USA has got helicopters and mine resistant vehicles at the price of a penny after their withdrawal fror Iraq but, when cannot do it at home,  it trust the important things to other Eu members.

About the Rafale deal: it's certanly an ambitious one but it is not something they cannot afford themselves as with this they will reach the sought goal of 2% of GDP in defence spending, get the best plane around, allowing them  not just to balance Serbian purchase of MiG-29 but also to have the most capable one of all the former Hapsbourg countries.
And doesn't bother with mainteinance or proficency into using them, as they say: Mali smo al'nas ima, srushit' cemo snovi svima. (We are small and we well know it but we definitively ARE, and born to defy the dreams of the bigger ones).
Don't forget they are Slavs also and of the toughest kin .

I think the toughest Slavs are Montenegrins.




Aside from excelling at some sports and being always someone's puppets, what is so tough about the Croats?

Do not make me laugh about the sports, the ancient Spartans actually sucked at the Olympics, their best discipline was chariot racing, which was the least athletic sport at the ancient Olympics, but they were still the best warriors, until Thebes defeated them.

Isos wrote:Yeah bravery has nothing to do with economy.

Rafale is very good but expensive and sensitive like most high tech stuff.

Let's see how they use them but I don't think they will be able to have ready all the time. Most likely 4 jets will survive and the rest will be kept in storage.

Against Serbia that won't be enough. Even if they are better than the old mig-29, its advanced technology can be negated :

- Fight in moutainous areas where the rafale has no advantage over the mig.
- Rafale are juicy targets that can be targeted by suicide drones from inside Croatia by special ops teams.
- They are based on only two airports. Destroy the runways and they can't take off.
- expensive guided munitions available in low quantity.
- Use of low altitude for dumb bombing makes it an easy target for AAA or manpads.

They will be based in Zadar and Zagreb which are at less than 350km away from serbian borders. 24 kh-35 or kh-59mk2 can be bought and integrated into the mig-29 to destroy them in their hangars.

Serbia has also the Sumadija guided rockets with 285km range that can target Zagreb airport from within Serbia or Zadar from serbian areas of Bosnia.

They can also buy russian Iskander with 300km range (could even be 400-500km for serbia). Flight time would be 5 minutes. With russian real time sat images they can coordinate an attack and destroy all of them at once with 12 missiles.

Croatia doesn't have an air defence to protect them. Serbia has on the opposite buk and pantsir to destroy any croatian missile or guided bombs.

For that mater Rafale isn't a game changer for them. They could have bought a cheaper plane they would ve in the same situation.

I'm not talking about just bravery but technical expertise.
Croatia is not 404 country, at the contrary its own budget is perfectly in line with Eu requirement and in the mean time it is the country of the world with the greatest lenghts of motorways for inhabitants (all perfectly and flawlessy functioning), culminated with the building of the bridge on the Peljiesac last year, it already use some of the most complex western military ecquipment without any problem.
And no, they are not ordered thinking to go to war with Serbia or Russia , just to deter someone (very few actually) into having some revanche ideas, at the contrary they would have a stabilizing function for the whole area, as they would allow to conduct air policing mission not just over Croatia but over all the other nations of the area that have not kept such a capacity for themselves, like Slovenia, Albania, Macedonia,and the poor beggars of Montenegro.

About this, let me ,say this to Odin of Ossetia.
The location of this video is where most of croatian part of my family lived, we know those cowards very well  as the year immediately after they where kicked back from here and began to reconstruct the mess those lowlifes have caused, the burned churches and houses , the devastated fields and graveyard.
I was there also to help the more I could, while the war was there and I will never forget the horrors i have seen, still i went back with great example of pride and patriotism, there was also rage and desire of vengeance but we all trusted in God to be our Avenger.
He and Croatians.
Mission accomplished.
Now still after all those years i still keep on coming back, through perfect motorways and gorgeous town and beaches, still my preferred route is the old roads passing trought all the lands that were once occupied and went liberated one by one, beginning from Glina all the way to Montenegro.
Many Serbs still live here, most of them fled immediately after the war and went in Serbia, but they returned after some years, preferring to live under the Croats than starve in Beograd camps.
What best vengeance and what best victory could we ask for?
Montenegro only was able to turn coat in an hurry and separate from the little Yugoslavia before the whole building collapsed and so they kept their usual gig, strong with weak, weak with strong and despised by everyone around.
Now, there is not a gretest NATO bitch than them aroud there, so please, just shut up about things you have not even an hint about.

Spartans of the Balkans are cowards?

Are you even serious?

At least they have much longer history of independence than the Croats. I guess that counts for a lot.


I know Croats are industrious and that they excel at some sports, but I wonder where their eternal subservience to foreign powers comes from?

Perhaps from Poland, where either all or most of their R1a y-dna lineages come from? We had tribes in south-eastern Poland like Vislans and Lendzians who some historians think were Northern Croats.


And the siege of Dubrovnik was lifted due to the international pressure, sanctions, embargoes, coupled with diplomatic efforts, not really due to some "heroic defense."

Historically Dubrovnik is not even genuine Croatia.

Odin of Ossetia wrote:



Spartans of the Balkans are cowards?

Are you even serious?

At least they have much longer history of independence than the Croats. I guess that counts for a lot.


I know Croats are industrious and that they excel at some sports, but I wonder where their eternal subservience to foreign powers comes from?

Perhaps from Poland, where either all or most of their R1a y-dna lineages come from? We had tribes in south-eastern Poland like Vislans and Lendzians who some historians think were Northern Croats.


And the siege of Dubrovnik was lifted due to the international pressure, sanctions, embargoes, coupled with diplomatic efforts, not really due to some "heroic defense."

Historically Dubrovnik is not even genuine Croatia.

Man, with all of due respect, I'm deadly serious.
I WAS THERE for the holy name of Christ! I have seen firsthand what they have done, members of my family have suffered horribly for what their lowlifes have done.
I was in Dubrovnik some months after the siege was lifted, I have seen (from a distance ) the fighting still raging on.
I knew persons that died in such a war.
So please, don't pretend of knowing ANYTHING about such a war and try to lecture me with some third hand misguided reading.

Also because I'm an Historian so I will talk you for hours about history of Croatia, Dalmatia , Slavonia and Herzegovina.
And Bosna, Rascia and Zeta too. Boring EVERYONE around at death.

Still, I went here to discuss about the present and future not about a past that, I repeat you , is for me a source of personal grief (but also of fond memory and pride), so please let's stay on the topic (that is vast in itself) and didn't stir old ghosts.

You can however PM me , so I could send you some hints to find information about the whole military history of the Dinaric Peoples (as Balkans are in a complete opposite part of the penisula, you know).

You had it easy.

Odin, please go to the first post of this thread (which is yours) and change the title of this thread to better identify what the actual subject and topic of this thread is so people interested in the topic can actually find it and on topic comments can be made here.

How about this title to this thread: Croats Think They Are Toughest But They Are Not.



Some additional reading:

http://www.crveneberetke.com/vukovar-secanje-na-ubijenu-srpsku-decu-i-civile/


"Heroic" defenders of Vukovar were massacring ethnic Serb civilians, including children.

If you want to make it into an argument instead of a discussion it might just get deleted...

The problem they found was that its fire power was negated by having to land.

"Firepower negated by having to land"!!!? The general idea is definitely not for the helicopter to stick around on the ground! The Mi-24 can just drop it's load and scoot away behind cover and deliver it's firepower at standoff range. Delivering troops in a hot zone is not recommended but an attack helicopter like the Mi-24 can take quite a bit of punishment. We did this very successfully in Pumas with paper thin skin! The troop's first priority is to secure the helicopter by spreading around it ready for action - a very common practice.

To operate from a helicopter carrier then it would have to be either a Ka-31 or a Ka-52K... the latter has a modern capable AESA radar

AESA radar is great and all that but the Ka-52K's radar is limited in area of coverage and it's range is said to be around 200 kms. For proper AEW you need 360 degrees coverage and the radar of such an asset is much more powerful with far greater range. You will probably now suggest 6-8 Ka-52K's in the air but one dedicated AEW asset in the air is really good enough and it could direct those 8 Ka-52K's to do their actual job properly.

The requirement for air power is being able to see out to a much greater radar horizon...

That's exactly why a dedicated AEW unit is just so much better for this purpose. No point in looking in one direction and finding your arse literally being kicked from the other side!

to launch 9M96 ARH SAMs of the 60km range or 150km range variety... they fly at about mach 5... how is that for dash speed?

Great! However the problem is you can't just just fire missiles at everything each time you want to intercept something - esp in peace time!  
Even with the crappy F-35 the Ka-52 would have a hard time intercepting it! In fact that is actually one of the big issues with the F-35. It can't intercept anything that flies faster that the Tu-95!

the four pylons could carry four Iglas each for a total of 16 AAMs

I would say that loadout would be much better suited in the anti-helicopter role. Pitting it's Iglas against SSM's could work I guess but by then most sailors would have probably abandoned ship already!  

The American Searam is a mishmash of a range of weapons but ultimately its performance isn't much different from the Igla-S...

Exactly my point - it's pretty close to useless in this scenario. If you want a popper CIWS rather use a Pantsir-M.

They wont operate their helicopter carriers without a fixed wing carrier like Kuznetsov.

That may not be a given and highly unlikely as it is - and that is probably why they are thinking VTOL again.

I am comparing it with the Ka-52K because it is being made and they are going to have them..

Yes and that's great but they will use them as attack and recce helicopters - not some super interceptor to fend off incoming missiles and attack aircraft.

In comparison the Kamov has a modern AESA radar and the capacity to carry a range of weapons.

...and what makes you think any possible future VTOL fighter may not have all that and even more!  

There is no evidence the main engine of the Yak-141 could be used in flight to improve maneuver performance while its IR signature would be enormous.

Absolutely and that is exactly why NATO dubbed it "Freestyle"! Also It's quite normal for jet engines to produce an enormous IR signature - nothing strange about that!?

No I am not... I am talking about the single seat MiG-29K that was developed from the MiG-29M in competition for the Su-27K for use on their new carrier... it was tested and the Flanker was chosen.

If that is so then once again - the Mig-29M was briefly known as the Mig-33. The Soviets called the aircraft the Mig-29M and it was presented for export in the post Soviet era as the Mig-29ME. The name "Mig-33" was very briefly used at Farnborough for marketing purposes instead of "Mig-29M". The original single seat Mig-29K was also present at shows but was always presented as the Mig-29K and never associated with the name "Mig-33". There is ample evidence to support this. I don't think you have any to support your claim. Since then the name "Mig-33" hasn't been used officially - the Mig-33 doesn't exist.

No, Garry, not 12 more new Boreis but 12 Boreis in total. I wrote about the fact that it is good that Russia has a fleet of 12 strategic submarines because without them and without ICBM's and nuclear weapons, even if there were 10 or 12 aircraft carriers in Russian Navy - The NATO pact would then immediately attack Russia.

First of all HATO hasn't got the balls to take on a peer enemy like Russia... not now and certainly not even in the 1990s... they would only attack if they saw weakness and none of that is showing currently.

A Russia with only strategic weapons is fragile and weak... they need a global reach and global trade to prosper and grow and help other countries to prosper and grow without trying to limit or restrict them.

The west has been exploiting countries around the world by trading with them but also limiting their power and growth potential so they remain where they are and don't develop.

The west didn't really get a choice with Russia or China, but Russia and China don't treat other countries that way... they use their money and power of course... but not to limit their trade partners... lots of people on the wests and russias sides questioned what they should do about the rising power of the Chinese... what should they do?

Obviously the west demanded cooperation from the Russians to limit and contain Chinese growth and development... to which Putin pointed out that US sanctions on Russia are limiting its growth potential so why should Russia help the US tie China up in knots.

Chinas growth and development and success does not hurt Russia in any way, in fact a strong stable neighbour is good for Russia, and as a trade partner they will want more energy to fuel their growth, which Russia has to sell...

In 30 years fossil fuels are not going to be the valuable commodity they are now because most new vehicles will be electric, so Russia should sell now while the prices are good... in fact sell on long term contracts for $300 per Kcm... it is a price they make lots of money on and much much cheaper than the current spot prices.... during summer or winter...

Russia needs modern nuclear weapons. RS-24, RS-28 and Avangrad are much more important.

Russia has those... why do you think offering air defence for the Russian Navy beyond the reach of Russian airbases is going to make them weaker?

Yes, Gorshkov had began with the development of the ocean fleet, but in the meantime the USSR disintegrated. And some leftovers of that fleet are still in service; 2 1144 class cruisers (they called them "expensive toys of Admiral Gorshkov"), 3 1164 cruisers and Kuznetsov aircraft carrier. Why would Russians spend money in these conditions on something on which their survival does not depend ?

Because it is 2022 and not 1994... Russias survival is assured 100%... but survival is one thing... growth and development is something else... investing in infrastructure at home is important and is being done... investing in Russias global presence and reach and projection of Russian interests now needs to be sorted out.

They have shown with their naval programme they are slow and steady and well planned... by about 2030 they will be producing Destroyers and likely new Cruisers and because of that they will also be looking at laying down a new CVN to help protect this new naval force... Russian fixed wing carriers are air defence carriers... the aircraft are to defend the surface and subsurface vessels of the Russian Navy.

If the Russian Navy remains sub focused and just has corvettes and frigates then containment by the west will be easy and they will suffocate Russia by restricting trade... either by blockades or by regime change on their potential trade partners... most likely both.

A Russia that only trades through its borders occupied mostly by its enemies (EU) will shrivel up and die... It will be more isolated than any new sanctions the US could impose.

At most they will build 2 or 3 new carriers in addition to the Kuznetsov which can continue to be used for several decades to come... they don't need 24/7 round the clock carrier domination of every single ocean on the planet... pretty soon the US Navy will announce it can't afford to keep doing that now either.

I will not even think about ships such as aircraft carriers until I see the mass construction of frigates. Is the construction of 22350 frigates as it should be ? No, not yet. Also, the modernization of multi-purpose submarines is very slow in Zvezdochka and Zvezda.

They need to get new destroyers and new cruisers into construction first of course, there is no way they will have CVNs in service till the late 2030s, but they will need them.

The new destroyers wont be cheap and neither will the new cruisers, so why would you leave them so vulnerable and exposed to enemy air power by not having a fixed wing carrier operating with them?

Its ponitless to thing about carriers right now and there will be no new aircraft carriers in Russian Navy in the next 8 to 10 years. Could we agree on that ? it may even start building an aircraft carrier but those ship or ships will not be in service untill early/late 30's. I think that Russian shipyards are not yet capable of building aircraft carriers.

Of course their shipyards could make carriers right now but without ships to support them there would be no point... anyone can make carriers... the reason they don't all have lots of them is the price... but having cruisers and destroyers for the northern and pacific and Black Sea fleets is not going to be cheap either...

Being able to sail to other countries and exercise with new allies and potential trading partners builds ties and confidence that Russia can back up what it says.

Having a fleet of Frigates and Corvettes and the idea their might be subs out there is useless in terms of international trade confidence.

Who is going to trade with Russia if the immediate consequence is to make the west an enemy... and they do have carriers and navies and they do hold a grudge.

So is it more important to continue with the production of multi-purpose submarines, ssbn's, to speed up construction of frigates, corvettes, than to to write about something that is not yet in sight (aircraft carrier/s) ?

They are going to get to a point where they have enough SSNs and SSBNs... having extra is like the 40,000 odd tanks the Soviet Union made during the Cold War... what a waste of time and money for all that scrap metal that is now useless...

A carrier means the Russian Navy is a global force which makes Russia a global power and global trading partner option instead of the west.

I don't think that the Su-57 is bad at all, but I think that the Russian Air Force needs it more.

It is an excellent plane, but having thousands of them means they are sitting at airfields waiting to be used... during peace time cheaper smaller aircraft can patrol the airspace cheaper and easier.

They do need them, but not urgently and not 3,500 of them.

Just the same if their Navy wants to be effective beyond the reach of Russian ground based air power then they need a carrier force... they don't need dozens and they don't need them right now... and the final design might be nothing like a US Ford class 100K carrier... they might find a way to pack the aircraft and storage and capacity of an 80K ton carrier into a 40K ton carrier of a new and clever design... it is all about capacity and the new carrier needs to carry more aircraft and bigger aircraft than the Kuznetsov can currently manage... it needs to be nuclear powered and it needs EMALS and to have a decent AWACS aircraft too.

Having a unique brand new aircraft designed for it makes no sense so a navalised Su-57 has been talked about a lot and should be designed and made.

Having a smaller lighter aircraft for shorter operations around the ships makes sense to enable larger numbers of aircraft to be carried in a given space... whether that is the MiG-35 or its twin engined 5th gen naval replacement is not important.

This primarily means that the Russian Air Force needs far more of those planes.

Make the 76 they are making and put them in service and use them for a bit and decide if they do really need these planes or not, and then decide if they want another 50 or another 200... they might decide with Su-35s and their Su-30s upgraded to Su-35 standard as well as the new MiG-35s and Checkmates as well as S-70 and other escort drone aircraft that they might not need to expand their numbers a lot.

To be honest they have plenty of big Flankers already and what they are actually missing is the short range tactical fighters that are used in numbers, like the MiG-21s and MiG-27s and Su-17s.... frontal aviation fighter bombers... which all got retired because they were single engined aircraft.

Drones can replace a lot of them but they still need to refill that gap.

if they build even 4 realtively large aircraft carriers and each aircraft carrier has even 48 (192 fighter jets in total) aircraft, maybe Su-75, that is not enough to fight against USA, UK, France, and others in some conventional war in Atlantic.

If they were to fight and try to win WWIII I would say they don't need any at all.

Why would Russia build their navy to fight HATO?

What purpose would that achieve except waste a lot of Russian money?

Their navy is for the defence of Russia and to ensure Russia gets trade access to the globe... the returns in trade with the rest of the world will pay for the carriers and the cruisers and destroyers...

Russia can already defend itself from the combined navies of all the HATO countries... sail up to Russian waters and get your head cut off with a Zircon or Kinzhal missile, and if they are not to your liking we also have Backfire delivered Kh-32 missiles as well as coastal Onyx and Bal and of course their sea based equivalents...

Therefore, it is better to rearm Monchegorsk airport, Krymsk, Khotilovo, Besovets airport, Kursk Vostochny airport, Belbek airport, Morozovsk airport, Baltimor airport, Chkalovsk, etc with Su-57 and other new types in the future.

How could that help Russia expand its international trade... HATO navies can be destroyed as they approach Russian waters... HATO countries can be eliminated minutes later with nuclear weapons... Russia does not need aircraft carriers or fighter planes to "deal" with HATO... nuclear weapons and lots of them is what they will use to deal with those aholes.

Is it better for Russia to have 400 or 500 Su-57's in VVS or 192 in MA VMF (Naval aviation) and far less of those in VVS ?

Your numbers are miles off.... assuming 48 fighters on a carrier is not bad, but 48 heavy fighters means the actual number of aircraft when fully loaded is more likely to be 24 Su-57s and 36 MiG-35s... so a total of 60 planes but with two new CVNs that would be 48 Su-57Ks... and considering the air defence network the VVS operates within on continental Russia why would they ever need 500 Su-57s... that is just ridiculous... what a bloody waste of money...

The whole point of the Checkmate is a small light affordable 5th gen fighter that can be purchased in huge numbers to fill out gaps in your defences efficiently and cheaply... the Su-57 is the medium more expensive, but also more capable 5th gen fighter that you buy a fraction of as a force multiplier... it is your IS-3 amongst your T-34-85s...

I have nothing against the fact that the Russian Ministry of Defense is currently ONLY building a defensive fleet.

The noises coming from Putin seem to suggest that defense can only work for so long against a determined aggressor and soon you have to push back.

Part of the pushing back will include cutting ties with the west completely, which means markets need to be found to replace them in terms of purchasing and selling.

Gas is easy... sell the gas for the EU to China. The other stuff will be harder but still doable... Russia does not need the west and would be better off looking to the rest of the world for trade partners for mutual development and growth.

Of course, that number will be questioned by the nay sayers, but we have clear data about the air purifying system of the type - it is rated at 500h effectiveness.
It is a commercial system, a part of HVAC installation, that is presented at world salons for a while.

Export values might be different for military ones... they might have one that carries more chemicals to work for longer...

The catch is that in reality, those are no longer ranged - both 212 and 636 are rated at 8-9knm with their own fuel supply.

If we are going with reality, the Germans had a working tank in production... the Panzer IV, which with upgrades was good enough to get the job done, but they developed a replacement vehicle that was better in every way... we know it as the Panther... and most experts agree that their policy of stopping production of the old but still useful vehicle for the new one which had lots of teething problems and production issues meant that for a long time they had no new tanks and then the new tanks slowly trickled into service and had problems was a mistake.

The shipyards making Improved kilos can't flick a switch and suddenly become Lada class sub production experts... they have to learn how to make these new boats which takes time.

Once the yards producing Ladas have serial production working it makes sense to then swap the other shipyards to making Ladas too except if they have export order of course.

Right now Russia has four fleets that could use new SSKs... whether they are ImpKilo or Lada is not critically important at the moment.

The general idea is definitely not for the helicopter to stick around on the ground! The Mi-24 can just drop it's load and scoot away behind cover and deliver it's firepower at standoff range

Combat experience in several led to the conclusion that the enemy often held fire till the helicopter touched down... stationary helicopters are easy targets and horribly vulnerable to weapons like RPGs and mortar fire as well as ATGMs.

The Mi-8 tended to expend its rocket ordinance to clear a landing zone before dropping off troops... and when it got airborne would leave the area as soon as it could, while the Mi-24 could attack any obvious enemy forces near the LZ... drop off troops and then take off and support the troops as they moved off.

As experience showed less casualties with dedicated troop transports the Hinds started to carry extra ammo, so with a couple of door gunners they could orbit the LZ and support the troops, but in clearings or areas with no enemy troops could dot down and reload some rockets or missiles...

The troop's first priority is to secure the helicopter by spreading around it ready for action - a very common practice.

Which makes front side doors and a rear ramp even more valuable... being able to drop vehicles like a Tigr to give the dropped troops mobility would be even more useful...

AESA radar is great and all that but the Ka-52K's radar is limited in area of coverage and it's range is said to be around 200 kms.

The point is not that it is super powerful... the point is that it is in the air shifting the radar horizon back a hundred kilometres or so compared with ship mounted radar...

For proper AEW you need 360 degrees coverage and the radar of such an asset is much more powerful with far greater range.

Obviously 360 degree radar coverage would be better but enormous range is not... enemy drones and cruise missiles probably could not be detected at enormous ranges anyway.

The Russian Army had the Ka-31 tested in the battlefield radar surveillance role... I believe the resulting upgrades and changes led to the Ka-35 designation being suggested.

You will probably now suggest 6-8 Ka-52K's in the air but one dedicated AEW asset in the air is really good enough and it could direct those 8 Ka-52K's to do their actual job properly.

The coaxial rotor design of the Ka-52K means it should be able to perform 360 degree pedal turns even when flying at speeds of 100km/h in any direction... so one Ka-52K can do the job easily enough to look for drones or things at low altitude that are so dangerous to landing ships.

That's exactly why a dedicated AEW unit is just so much better for this purpose. No point in looking in one direction and finding your arse literally being kicked from the other side!

A pedal turn in a helicopter would take less time than most conventional radar antennas on the top of ships spin...

Great! However the problem is you can't just just fire missiles at everything each time you want to intercept something - esp in peace time! Laughing
Even with the crappy F-35 the Ka-52 would have a hard time intercepting it! In fact that is actually one of the big issues with the F-35. It can't intercept anything that flies faster that the Tu-95!

You are not paying attention... I am not saying replace all carrier based fighters with Ka-52s... I am saying VSTOL fighters cost billions of dollars to get designed and developed and in to service while these helicopter ships will already have Ka-52K helicopters on them.

If you are involved in a landing operation and a foreign target starts to approach then Su-57s or MiG-35s or their equivalent will go out and meet them... the Ka-52K could just use its radar to look for low flying sneaky targets near the helicopter carrier or ships supporting it. The Ka-52K has an optronics suite as well to spot drones and other low radar objects.

Pitting it's Iglas against SSM's could work I guess but by then most sailors would have probably abandoned ship already!

Why? Do you think a Harpoon or a Tomahawk would be invulnerable to Iglas?

Exactly my point - it's pretty close to useless in this scenario. If you want a popper CIWS rather use a Pantsir-M.

Except the Ka-52K might be 15km away from the ship it is operating from, which means it can be shooting down threats at much greater distances... the US is bollocking on about swarm attacks... you defeat swarm attacks with more launchers and more missiles...

That may not be a given and highly unlikely as it is - and that is probably why they are thinking VTOL again.

Of course it would be a given... they wont have enough helicopter carriers to operate one as a mini air defence carrier, and any fighter you put on these helicopter carriers just makes them more useless as a helicopter carrier because it removes helicopters... not to mention the support equipment and spares needed for a different type of aircraft that does not currently exist.

Yes and that's great but they will use them as attack and recce helicopters - not some super interceptor to fend off incoming missiles and attack aircraft.

Agree totally... because they will have fixed wing fighters from carriers for that job.

...and what makes you think any possible future VTOL fighter may not have all that and even more!

Vapourware can have anything and everything... but what it does need is billions of dollars and 10-15 years to make it actually work... assuming it ever actually does.

The Soviets called the aircraft the Mig-29M and it was presented for export in the post Soviet era as the Mig-29ME. The name "Mig-33" was very briefly used at Farnborough for marketing purposes instead of "Mig-29M".

The design bureaus don't decide the numbers, they can only suggest.... it is the customer that decides.

If there is no customer then the name... no matter what it is remains unofficial.

The original single seat Mig-29K was also present at shows but was always presented as the Mig-29K and never associated with the name "Mig-33". There is ample evidence to support this. I don't think you have any to support your claim. Since then the name "Mig-33" hasn't been used officially - the Mig-33 doesn't exist.

Can you not read?

The MiG-33 identifies the aircraft that was competing to be the aircraft on the Kuznetsov... its designation was MiG-29K... it was a single seat only aircraft... but names for prototypes don't count because they are not official... the Russian Air Force or Russian Navy decides on the official designations... which is why the new MiG-29M is called the MiG-29M and not something else. The two seat model is called MiG-29M2 and the naval model was officially called MiG-29KR but because the original MiG-29K never entered service they now call it MiG-29K.

This means there are two MiG-29M and MiG-29K aircraft... one set first flew in the late 1980s and were both single seat aircraft and the new models... redesigned from scratch in the mid naughties that are based on a two seat design but fitted with one or two seats depending on the customers wishes.

The new models have official designations, while the older two aircraft are prototype designations and therefore unofficial.

The MiG-33 is defunct because the Russian Navy called the new MiG-29KR the MiG-29K, but when I talk about the MiG-33 I do so to make clear I mean the Cold War era aircraft that was a single seat only aircraft that did not enter service.

This ship would give a advantage against any navy but the one operating real carriers. VTOL are still better than the single helicopters operated on normal ships like frigates or destroyers.

Agree, but the price difference between a little ship like this needing extra support ships that a bigger better designed ship wouldn't need... along with the fact that the cost of developing VSTOL fighters to operate from it make it the not so cheap and not so fast option...

And against such navies 8-12 jets is more than enough since it can hunt enemy helicopters and launch kh-31/35 all day long.

I don't agree.... if you compare that with the Hermes from the early 80s that also carried about a dozen Harriers... those were incredibly vulnerable and not very well able to defend itself let alone other ships... look at how many ships were lost in that campaign...

If they had a bigger fixed wing carrier it is likely they would not have lost any ships at all... ultimately it would have been cheaper to have a real fixed wing carrier and gotten the job done properly with the right tools.

Not that Russia is going to be invading countries or stealing territory like the British and Americans do.

As long as the radar horizon exists or Russia develops interceptors, drones and AWACS aircraft with effectively unlimited range, carriers will be useful for it as an offshore air defence and early warning bubble.

And also very importantly.... during peace time you spot some radar contacts, with a carrier you can send some fighters out to investigate, so very quickly you will know what it is... during war time it is even more important to know what it is and what it is doing... even if your planes have to run away at least it is confirmed hostile.... weapons free... but if it turns out to be a civilian airliner then not shooting it down saves you some missiles you can use later on real threats.

The point is not that it is super powerful... the point is that it is in the air shifting the radar horizon back a hundred kilometres or so compared with ship mounted radar...

No - the point is we're not talking about the ships radar - we're talking about AEW radar on aircraft and UAV's vs the Ka-52K.

Obviously 360 degree radar coverage would be better but enormous range is not...

...and just ONE sentence ago you say this!  

the point is that it is in the air shifting the radar horizon back a hundred kilometres or so compared with ship mounted radar.

A pedal turn in a helicopter would take less time than most conventional radar antennas on the top of ships spin...

Modern day electronic radars scans in split seconds...but yeah you can paddle turn all day long if you want!  

You are not paying attention... I am not saying replace all carrier based fighters with Ka-52s... I am saying VSTOL fighters cost billions of dollars to get designed and developed and in to service while these helicopter ships will already have Ka-52K helicopters on them.

Looks like I've missed that bit where you said "I am saying VSTOL fighters cost billions of dollars to get designed and developed and in to service while these helicopter ships will already have Ka-52K helicopters on them". Please refer me back to where you've actually said that in our previous conversation as I can't seem to find it?

Why? Do you think a Harpoon or a Tomahawk would be invulnerable to Iglas?

Not at all, but knowing the capabilities of the Russians I would think their first line of defense would be long range air-to-air missiles, together with long range surface-to-air missiles. If that fails they would start using medium range AAM's and SAM's and if that fails they would use short range AAM's and SAM's and CIWS like the Pantsir. AND if that fails they would likely use Igla MANPADS. The Syrians air defense is rather more limited in this regard but when they shot down all those US cruise missiles they did mention the Pantsir and other SAM systems, but I don't seem to recall anything about Iglas downing cruise missiles - but perhaps they did?

Except the Ka-52K might be 15km away from the ship it is operating from, which means it can be shooting down threats at much greater distances[

Now we're cumming back to my point exactly! "15km away from the ship it is operating from" is a looong way for a helicopter to travel back in order to attack a threat detected from the opposite side - esp when armed with VERY short range Iglas! Now those Pantsir-M's would eat swarm attacks for breakfast without even breaking into a sweat!

Agree totally... because they will have fixed wing fighters from carriers for that job.

Yet you want the Ka-52's to do exactly that job!?

Vapourware can have anything and everything... but what it does need is billions of dollars and 10-15 years to make it actually work... assuming it ever actually does.

We're talking about "what if's" here and again my point is that the Ka-52 would suck at replacing the role of a VTOL fighter. Period.

The design bureaus don't decide the numbers, they can only suggest.... it is the customer that decides.
If there is no customer then the name... no matter what it is remains unofficial.

Feel free to provide me with any evidence that the original single seat Mig-29K would have been named Mig-33 when it entered service.
Just because the Navy changed the Su-27K to Su-33 does not mean the Mig-29K would automatically be Mig-33.

Can you not read? The MiG-33 identifies the aircraft that was competing to be the aircraft on the Kuznetsov... its designation was MiG-29K.

OMG! I am afraid I will have to use the word retard again. Clearly you are the one that is not paying attention!
Did you read the subtitle on the first black and white scan I provided!? It says clearly "Mig-33 that was previously known as the Mig-29M".
The picture was taken during the said Farnborough show.

Google is freely available but perhaps you can read better in Russian?




Once again discussing something with you becomes one huge retarded argument where you keep on making stupid and unfounded claims.
It's really a pointless exercise and a huge waist of time.

No - the point is we're not talking about the ships radar - we're talking about AEW radar on aircraft and UAV's vs the Ka-52K.

The actual point is that Ka-52Ks are ready for operation now and Yak-38s and Yak-141s and any further developments in that area are currently dead and do not offer any real chance of having performance better than the carrier based fighters they already have.

Making a new VSTOL fighter can only be justified by their supposed ability to get airborne quickly... and I am sure a Ka-52K can fully match that.

In every other regard conventional existing fighters are better in every other way... the only two reasons to go forward with VSTOL fighters is ego (ie the F-35 can do it so we need the same), and also because it is something Yak is fascinated with and wants to make... neither of which are very good ideas for spending that money.

Helicopter carriers are better with helicopters.

I don't think Russia should waste money in tilt rotor aircraft either...

..and just ONE sentence ago you say this!

The radar horizon from sea level against a sea skimming missile is less than 20km... mounted in a helicopter that can climb to 4km altitude that horizon would be many hundreds more kms than the actual radar in the Kamov could actually see... but still much better than the ship even if it is only 150km.

Modern day electronic radars scans in split seconds...but yeah you can paddle turn all day long if you want!

A modern phased array radar can scan its field of view in miliseconds, but as with teh Ka-52K if it is a single flat array facing one direction at a time means it can scan the visible 120 odd degrees in a milisecond but would take time to turn 3 times to get a full 360 degree picture of the airspace...

Looks like I've missed that bit where you said "I am saying VSTOL fighters cost billions of dollars to get designed and developed and in to service while these helicopter ships will already have Ka-52K helicopters on them". Please refer me back to where you've actually said that in our previous conversation as I can't seem to find it?

We have discussed this topic for years... catch up.

Not at all, but knowing the capabilities of the Russians I would think their first line of defense would be long range air-to-air missiles, together with long range surface-to-air missiles.

Well knowing the Russians you would also know they use an IADS in which each element does not work on its own but as part of an organised and managed system.

A Ka-52K flying around a helicopter carrier and however many other ships operating with it will be passing information to the ships nearby so if it detects incoming missiles that are outside the range of its missiles then it would hand the target data to nearby ships who would most likely engage.... as I have mentioned... with the 60km range or 150km range ARH Redut missiles of the 9M96 variety. Sneaky stealthy targets that slipped through and gotten in close will no doubt be detected via IIR sensors on the helicopter and can be engaged with iglas at very close range as needed.... but again target information would also be passed to other platforms in the area too.

Using cheap MANPADS is an efficient way of dealing with a threat when large numbers are involved... 16 iglas can stop more targets than four LMUR or R-73 missiles. The range of R-77 missiles from low altitude and low speed launch platforms is a tiny fraction of the max stated range for these weapons.

If that fails they would start using medium range AAM's and SAM's and if that fails they would use short range AAM's and SAM's and CIWS like the Pantsir. AND if that fails they would likely use Igla MANPADS.

And how much time would there be between the Pantsirs missiles and guns failing before the threat hits the ship... doesn't give much time for that intercept to take place...

The Syrians air defense is rather more limited in this regard but when they shot down all those US cruise missiles they did mention the Pantsir and other SAM systems, but I don't seem to recall anything about Iglas downing cruise missiles - but perhaps they did?

That incident occurred before the Russians added them to their IADS network... perhaps you should look up the Barnaul air defence system for MANPADS and look at the history of why they modified the Igla to the Igla-S level... hint... it involves adding a proximity fuse for engaging small targets...

Now we're cumming back to my point exactly! "15km away from the ship it is operating from" is a looong way for a helicopter to travel back in order to attack a threat detected from the opposite side - esp when armed with VERY short range Iglas! Now those Pantsir-M's would eat swarm attacks for breakfast without even breaking into a sweat!

Yeah, you are clearly missing the point that the idea of the aircraft in the air is early detection of very low flying threats.... if the Ka-52K is 20km away from the ship it is protecting and it sees an anti ship missile coming from the other side of the ship... the point is that it will likely see it at 120km, which means the ships air defence system will be ready to engage as soon as it pops over the radar horizon a few minutes later... the Ka-52K is there to spot targets and is armed to engage them if it gets the chance, but it is part of an IADS network and that is how they work... in Syria the Russian S-400 radar probably tracked all of those missiles used to attack the Syrian forces... it wasn't linked to them, but it could tell the individual vehicles that something was coming and from which direction and when to expect them to be visible... which is a huge advantage that Saudi Arabia lacked...

Yet you want the Ka-52's to do exactly that job!?

They will be there anyway, and it is unlikely they will all be hitting ground targets at once.

We're talking about "what if's" here and again my point is that the Ka-52 would suck at replacing the role of a VTOL fighter. Period.

Fair point, but my point is that a VTOL fighter sucks at air defence, are enormously expensive, and crash a lot.... and are not useful by anyone else... in the US only the US Marines even want the damn things... and the UK bought some to try to save on EMALS cat systems... which is ridiculous because the technology behind EMALS cats is going to be useful in so many other areas moving forward...

Feel free to provide me with any evidence that the original single seat Mig-29K would have been named Mig-33 when it entered service.

How about the Su-27K being called Su-33 when it entered service?

Just because the Navy changed the Su-27K to Su-33 does not mean the Mig-29K would automatically be Mig-33.

You are right, it doesn't... but as I was following the development at the time and MiG called the MiG-29K MiG-33 it just kinda stuck.

In their advertising they have used all sorts of different names and of course western propaganda bullshit about fake stealth fighters add further to the confusion like the MiG-37 which does not exist either... but if I mention it you know what I am talking about... which is why I call it MiG-33 to make it clear I don't mean the current MiG-29K which is a totally different aircraft.

Did you read the subtitle on the first black and white scan I provided!? It says clearly "Mig-33 that was previously known as the Mig-29M".
The picture was taken during the said Farnborough show.

Airwar.ru is a fan site and not official.

The MiG-29M that they are referring to is the single seat one that first flew in 1988 and never entered service either so it is not MiG-33 either.

The MiG-29M and MiG-29M2, which are the same aircraft depending on whether one seat is fitted or two are is the MiG-29M/2, the original MiG-29M with the single seat layout is just a prototype that never made it to service.
The MiG-29K also didn't make it to service in its single seat form, while the MiG-29K that is in service is called the MiG-29K for the single seat model or MiG-29KUB for the two seater, while the upgraded model is called MiG-35 for the single seater and MiG-35D for the twin seat aircraft...

Have a look on MiGs website:

http://migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/newest-fighter-mig-35

Go to the Products and services menu item and down to MiG-29 family and the drop down box shows the models and their designations.

Google is freely available but perhaps you can read better in Russian?

The MiG website shows it in English.

Once again discussing something with you becomes one huge retarded argument where you keep on making stupid and unfounded claims.
It's really a pointless exercise and a huge waist of time.

Yeah, stupid claims like what it says on MiGs website.... what am I thinking.... you don't understand, so I must be stupid.

WOW and the retardness continues unabated!

Have a look on MiGs website:

http://migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/newest-fighter-mig-35

Go to the Products and services menu item and down to MiG-29 family and the drop down box shows the models and their designations.

The MiG website shows it in English.

Do you see any Mig-33 in there? Let me answer that for you. NO

Next question: Do you see a Mig-29KR listed there? Let me answer that for you. YES

Next question: Why haven't they renamed it to the Mig-33 when it entered service? Let me answer that for you. Dunno

Guess what? There is no such thing as a Mig-33  

Google Mig-33. Guess what? The Mig-29M was briefly known as the Mig-33  

Saved you a lot of blue screen time there bro!

@ GaryB

The MiG-29M that they are referring to is the single seat one that first flew in 1988 and never entered service either so it is not MiG-33 either.

Here is a FAR more comprehensive list of Mig-29 variants and modifications from Russian sources.

You should contact Migavia and inform them that they missed a few!    

Pay special attention to the one marked in red below.

The first prototype is "9-01".

MiG-29 (9-12) - front-line fighter, the first serial modification of the MiG-29
MiG-29 (9-12A) is an export modification of 9-12, supplied to the Warsaw Pact countries and other countries, the export model has been modified in the RLPK-29. They were equipped with R-27R1 and R-27T1 missiles, which had degraded characteristics relative to the basic modifications.
MiG-29B (9-12B) is an export modification of 9-12, supplied to countries outside the Warsaw Pact Organization, the export model has been modified to the weapons control system (SUV-29E). They were equipped with R-27R1 and R-27T1 missiles, which had degraded characteristics relative to the basic modifications.
MiG-29 (9-13) is a front-line fighter. It differs from the modification 9-12 in the presence of a built-in electronic warfare station "Gardenia", the possibility of suspension of two underwing PTB and an increased weight of the combat load.
MiG-29S (9-13S) - further development of modification 9-13, the R-77 missile (RVV-AE) is included in the range of weapons, the radar has a mode of simultaneous attack of two air targets.
MiG-29SD - multi-purpose fighter added the ability to refuel in the air, increased resource.
The MiG-29SM is a modification of the MiG-29S, with the possibility of using high-precision air-to-surface weapons.
MiG-29SMT (9-17,9-18,9-19) - single-seat, upgraded version of the MiG-29SM
MiG-29K (9-31, 9-41) - carrier-based fighter
MiG-29KUB (9-47) is a carrier-based combat training fighter.
The MiG-29KVP is an experimental aircraft for practicing springboard takeoff and aerial landing.
MiG-29UB (9-51) - combat training fighter, has no radar.
MiG-29UBT (9-52) - the design is close to the MiG-29SMT, but it is still a modification of the MiG-29UB combat training aircraft.
The MiG-29M/MiG-29M1 is a single-seat multi-purpose fighter of the "4++" generation with an increased flight range, increased combat load and an expanded range of onboard weapons.
The MiG-29M2 is a two-seat multi-purpose fighter of the "4++" generation with an increased flight range, increased combat load and an expanded range of onboard weapons.
MiG-29OVT - an experimental variant with a deflected thrust vector created on the basis of the MiG-29M fighter
The MiG-29M (MiG-33) (9-15) is a multi-purpose fighter, compared with the early modifications of the MiG-29, significant changes have been made to the design and composition of the avionics, the range of weapons has been expanded and fuel tanks have been increased.
MiG-35 (9-61) - deep modernization of the MiG-29M
MiG-35D (9-67) - two-seat version of the MiG-35
MiG-29UPG (9-20) - modernization of the MiG-29B for the Indian Air Force. It includes the installation of an additional conformal dorsal fuel tank and equipment for refueling in the air, the installation of RD-33M-3 engines, the inertial navigation system of the French company Thales, the Zhuk-M2E weapon control radar, the OLS-UEM optical system, the helmet-mounted targeting system of the Israeli company Elbit, the update of radio navigation systems, as well as a new "glass cabin" with multifunctional LCD displays. The range of weapons will be expanded with the X-29T/L, X-31A/P and X-35 missiles. The first prototype flew on February 4, 2011.
MiG-29AS - modernization of the MiG-29A for the Slovak Air Force under the MiG-29SD program without a refueling system and with modified avionics.
MiG-29N is a modification of the MiG-29SD for the Malaysian Air Force.

Migavia's list of Mig-29 variants >>

MiG-29M, or "9-15", or MiG-33, according to NATO codification - Fulcrum-E, Superfulcrum - is a multifunctional 4+ generation fighter aircraft manufactured in Russia and the USSR. It is the result of the development of the MiG-29.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjalrKIvrH1AhXP2aQKHTheCgcQFnoECAMQAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcontract-army.ru%2Finfo%2Fistrebitel-mig-33%2F&usg=AOvVaw3YQzaYnAM7ddaFPEAE50Hl

Great you've got! NATO gave it the name "Fulcrum E".

WOW and the retardness continues unabated!

Keep up with the innuendo that I am retarded and I can assure you it will stop.

Do you see any Mig-33 in there? Let me answer that for you. NO

As I explained and wont be explaining again, I use the designation to refer to a specific prototype from a specific period in time to avoid confusion with the current MiG-29K which is a totally different aircraft.

Next question: Do you see a Mig-29KR listed there? Let me answer that for you. YES

No. If you look again at the drop down list for MiG-29s you will see the new post 2005 carrier based MiG-29 they have decided to call MiG-29K for the single seat and MiG-29KUB for the two seat aircraft... even though they are the same aircraft with a different number of seats fitted.

Next question: Why haven't they renamed it to the Mig-33 when it entered service? Let me answer that for you. Dunno

You would have to ask the Russian Navy, they are the ones that decide which designations are official and they decided to go with MiG-29K and MiG-29KUB.

Guess what? There is no such thing as a Mig-33 What a Face

Google Mig-33. Guess what? The Mig-29M was briefly known as the Mig-33 cheers

So the MiG-29M (original single seat model) and the MiG-29K (original single seat model based on the original single seat model MiG-29M) were briefly known as MiG-33.

They also described a prototype projected enlarged MiG-29M with canards and made slightly bigger to better compete with the Su-27 on the international market as MiG-33 but that was temporary as well.

Here is a FAR more comprehensive list of Mig-29 variants and modifications from Russian sources.

You should contact Migavia and inform them that they missed a few!

The only sources I have seen that list the MiG-29M as being the MiG-33 are western sources and in particular a Concord publication series of books dedicated to model makers that was basically photo books about things in a range of topics. One such book was about future Russian aircraft that was published in the 1990s and described the MiG-29M as being the MiG-33. Books from similar time periods also mention the MiG-29K as being MiG-33s as well but they were also wrong which is compounded by the fact that MiG called an unsuccessful design MiG-29M that no body bought, and have reused the name for a new upgrade that radically transformed the design in the mid naughties which they also call MiG-29M or MiG-29M2.

When I first saw that I actually thought they meant the original single seat single canopy upgraded MiG-29 was the MiG-29M and the new MiG-29 that allows a second seat to be added or removed and replaced with extra fuel would be called MiG-29M2 but it seems they are calling the single seat aircraft MiG-29M and the two seat model MiG-29M2 which I think is silly because of the fact that you can change one from the other by adding or removing the seat and extra fuel tank... so any MiG-29M you see could easily be converted into a MiG-29M2 and vice versa... which I think is ridiculous... but as I keep saying to you and you are ignoring, MiG don't decide the service designations of their aircraft... the customer decides.... and the Russian Air Force isn't buying MiG-29Ms or MiG-29M2s, they are buying MiG-35s and MiG-35Ds... which of course has the same problem, and of course the MiG-29K and MiG-29KUB... where the removal of an extra seat and addition of an extra fuel tank can make it one and the addition of a seat when that extra fuel tank is removed will make it the other type... which is going to make keeping track of what you have rather tricky.

Migavia's list of Mig-29 variants >>

I have seen that image... I was the one who told you how to find it... what makes you think that is important information?

The MiG-29K and MiG-29KUB are the new models, there was no original two seat version of the MiG-29K, it had a single seat canopy because it was based on the original MiG-29M which was also single seat only.

MiG-29M, or "9-15", or MiG-33, according to NATO codification - Fulcrum-E, Superfulcrum - is a multifunctional 4+ generation fighter aircraft manufactured in Russia and the USSR. It is the result of the development of the MiG-29.

NATO also identified the Su-19 and provided a photo of an Su-24 in books in the 1970s, so their designation is not worth squat... and they didn't make any serial products for service AFAIK.

Great you've got! NATO gave it the name "Fulcrum E".

Which means sweet FA.

Keep up with the innuendo that I am retarded and I can assure you it will stop.

I have never said you are retarded. What I am saying is that if the argument becomes an endless stream of empty words not based on any facts at all,  then the whole discussion becomes retarded. For example you keep on insisting that the original Mig-29K was known as the Mig-33. There is absolutely no evidence to back your claim but you insist that it is. Not only that, you insist that the Mig-29M was ever known as the Mig-33, despite overwhelming evidence that it was briefly known as the Mig-33.

So the MiG-29M (original single seat model) and the MiG-29K (original single seat model based on the original single seat model MiG-29M) were briefly known as MiG-33.

AND now you've come around to finally! admitting the fact that the Mig-29M was known as Mig-33 BUT now you try to claim the Mig-29K was also dubbed the Mig-33! Now that statement absolutely confirms what I've said above. There is not ONE shred of evidence that the Mig-29K was ever known as the Mig-33. Now in anticipation of your response I can just say the Su-27 and Su-27K was never collectively known as the Su-33.

The only sources I have seen that list the MiG-29M as being the MiG-33 are western sources

I have given you plenty of Russian sources including the list on all the variants.

I have seen that image... I was the one who told you how to find it... what makes you think that is important information?

You apparently did >>

Have a look on MiGs website:
http://migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/newest-fighter-mig-35
Go to the Products and services menu item and down to MiG-29 family and the drop down box shows the models and their designations.
The MiG website shows it in English.

I would sincerely like to suggest in order to have a fruitful and a decent conversation, you should refrain from making statements that are completely baseless. It is a sure recipe for a toxic environment - which is something a Moderator should guard against.

What I am saying is that if the argument becomes an endless stream of empty words not based on any facts at all, then the whole discussion becomes retarded.

No, this is not an argument, this is a discussion.

There is no such thing as empty words I have explained exactly what I meant and why I used the words I did.

Discussions by definition can never be diagnosed as retarded.

Retarded is a mental condition. A discussion cannot have a mental condition.

Get over it.

For example you keep on insisting that the original Mig-29K was known as the Mig-33

I did know it as the MiG-33, while it was competing for the chance to be operational... just like the Su-57 was known as the Su-57 before any serial aircraft were made.

Technically originally the MiG-33 and Su-33 should not have been competing for places on the Carrier, the carrier was designed to carry a small number of Su-33 long range interceptor/fighters and a large number of the smaller MiG-33s to maximise the number of aircraft they could carry... which is what they are doing right now.

The problem at the time was that MiG made the original MiG-29M multirole and rather more capable than the Su-33 which was really just an Su-27P converted with folding bits and a tail hook and strengthened under carriage to make it carrier capable.
The result was that the MiG-29K which we called MiG-33 at the time was just as expensive as the Su-33 and the whole point was to save money by having some smaller cheaper planes for threats not so far away and some bigger more expensive planes to get the reach of a bigger plane... the best of both worlds... but just like Algeria with their MiG-29SMTs and Su-30s offered at the same price they decided to simplify things by only needing to carry spare parts and resources and support equipment for one fighter plane and they just bought the Su-33.

The MiG-29K/MiG-33 only came in a single seat version which meant it couldn't be used to replace the only two seat fixed wing aircraft on the carrier... the two seat trainer Su-25 modification... I believe they called it Su-28 because it had no ground attack capacity and was just used as a trainer and later a target towing aircraft for gun defence testing.

The new MiG-29K and MiG-29KUB mean they no longer need a two seat training aircraft so the training Frogfoot is no longer needed.

There is absolutely no evidence to back your claim but you insist that it is. Not only that, you insist that the Mig-29M was ever known as the Mig-33, despite overwhelming evidence that it was briefly known as the Mig-33.

Look at the MiG website... under the MiG-29 designation they show the MiG-29s they produced... the MiG-29M single seat plane that first flew in the late 1980s is NOT LISTED... and nor is the MiG-29K single seat carrier plane that is based on it... they were prototypes that never entered service so any designation they might use for it is either speculation in the west (ie calling the first MiG-29K the MiG-33) or proposed names by MiG, neither of which is not official till it is serial produced and they weren't.

AND now you've come around to finally! admitting the fact that the Mig-29M was known as Mig-33 BUT now you try to claim the Mig-29K was also dubbed the Mig-33!

I personally at the time only ever saw one example of the MiG-29M being called MiG-33 and it was in a Concord book on future Russian planes.

It was being called MiG-33 because that was the next available designation for a MiG fighter, not because that was what its official designation was... just like the MiG-41 is being called MiG-41... mainly because it is replacing the MiG-31 eventually because they tend to do that like with the Su-34 and Su-24...

Yes obviously it would be freaky if the brand new fighter from MiG and the brand new fighter from Sukhoi had the same number designation... like MiG-35 and Su-35 perhaps? But such things are often anticipated by most interested in the topic like myself and others.

There is not ONE shred of evidence that the Mig-29K was ever known as the Mig-33. Now in anticipation of your response I can just say the Su-27 and Su-27K was never collectively known as the Su-33.

Really? Funny that many current sources are revised but archives are not...

https://web.archive.org/web/20110513212625/http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su33/history/

I have given you plenty of Russian sources including the list on all the variants.

Plenty?

Two photos in your post number 866 which look like western magazines... and a web page from a Russian aircraft website that is not related to MiG or the Russian Air Force.

A list that looks like it came from Wiki, and a screenshot of a page I led you to in the first place.

I would sincerely like to suggest in order to have a fruitful and a decent conversation, you should refrain from making statements that are completely baseless. It is a sure recipe for a toxic environment - which is something a Moderator should guard against.

You are the one that is creating the problem.

I referred to a prototype aircraft using a no longer used term to highlight it to distinguish it from later aircraft with the same designation and you start a conversation I don't properly understand anymore.

First you whine there is no MiG-33 then you show the MiG-29M original single seater was going to be called MiG-33... well that is because that would be the next logical designation for it in the naming convention they use. When the MiG-29K was rejected for service on their new carrier then of course the MiG-29M which that MiG-29K was based upon would then become the candidate to become the MiG-33, but the fact that they used brackets showed it was never used as a designation because both aircraft ended up never entering service and therefore have no official designation... which is why ten years later when they further improved the design and unified it with a cheap and expensive land based model, or should I say simple and more capable model, with a carrier oriented version they continued to use exactly the same designations because the previous designations were not used officially.

The upgraded MiG-29M couldn't remain a MiG-29 so it should have been the MiG-33... but the MiG-29K would be the MiG-33 because it entered service before the upgraded and improved MiG-29M so a gap was left for the carrier based MiG-29K to be called the MIG-33 if they wanted to, so the upgraded MiG-29M that they decided to put into serial production got the next available number which was MiG-35. The MiG-29M and the two seat version have not been accepted to Russian Air Force service... but down the track if they do... just to get a numbers aircraft... they might designate it MiG-33 or just MiG-29M to show the MiG-35 is newer and more capable.

You are 100% correct.

Retarded is a mental condition.

Mir wrote:You are 100% correct.

Retarded is a mental condition.

Just forget it. He (the mighty GarryB) knows everything, no matter what subject; even in microbiology, aerodynamics, quantum physics; he has flown airplanes, has commanded, built and maintained ships and submarines, has driven tanks while he has loaded the gun, radioed and operated the gunner optics, baked cookies and cleaned his G36; Chuck Norris would turn green with envy; he is knowledgeable everywhere, he does not have to prove anything. It's HIS forum, no one is allowed to disagree (even if they can prove it) or argue against him. Good advice: Just enjoy the posts with news and pictures and let him have his playground.