Indian Mig-27
Posted on 07/21/2006 10:10:45 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
MiG 27 Fighter Bomber Will Have New Engines
General director of the Salyut Moscow Machine Building Production Plant Yury Eliseev has announced at the Farnborough Airshow in Great Britain that a new engine will be used in modernized MiG 27 fighter bombers, the main aircraft of the Indian Air Force. The new engine, the AL-31F, will be 200 kg. lighter than the R-29B-300 used previously, and have one metric ton more propulsion (12,300 kg./sec.) than its predecessor. It will also use 15 percent less fuel.
The Indian Air Force has 150 Mi G27 Bahadur models and will modernize 60 of them. General reconstruction will be carried out at the same time, with replacement of onboard equipment that will expand their abilities. The MiG 27 is the main fighter in the Indian Air Force. It was developed in the mid-1970s and mass produced in India between 1986 and 1996.
The ultrasonic aircraft has wings with changeable sweep for strikes against targets on the ground using precision-guided weapons such as pinpoint bombs and guided missiles. The modernization of the MiG 27 and its predecessor the MiG 23BN will bring in at least $1 billion to the Russian military industrial complex in the course of the next 10-12 years.
www.kommersant.com
Indian Mig-27
Why do they paint targets on the sides?........
Built using reverse engineering from F-4 wreckage.
The Flogger. Their ripoff of the F-111 Aardvarks
How does this upgrade leave the MiG 27 in comparison performance wise to some of the USAF birds?
Any proof to show that the Mig-23/27 has any relation to the F-4.It's got far shorter range & payload ,not to mention inferior electronics when compared to the Phantom.
For one,it will increase the thrust & endurance of the Mig-27.The type is seen as a textbook early Soviet aircraft-built for one purpose solely,with plenty of limitations.The Mig-27 has very poor range,payload(about 4.5 tonnes),no air to air capability....The Indian upgrade will go beyond the engines.For one,it will integrate new sensors like the Israeli Litening pod allowing the Mi-27 to deploy stand-off PGMs.The aircraft is also being modified for aerial refuelling to increase it's pathetic range.It may integrate Electronic warfare systems from newer Indian warplanes & may also take a podded radar system(it only has a laser designator)-which in theory can enable it to deploy AAMs.
All in all,the type will become very capable & more useful for Indian requirements-but there is little use in comparing it with American planes.IT lags behind in most respects.
I know that sounds lame but I swear it's true.
The IAF used to operate the Mig-23 since about 1973-that type is being retired now.BTW,the Mig-27 is the ground attack variant of the Mig-23 & was never designed to have any air to air capability.Ive heard that it is not the easiest thing to fly with rearward visibility being an issue.But then again,it has never had to operate in adverse situations,where serious limitations could be exposed.
Thanks. I kind of suspected this was the case.
Something wrong here. Thrust is measured in pounds or kilograms, not kilograms/second.
Make up you mind. F-4 or F-111?
A little of this, a little of that...
Note the engine intake that CholeraJoe mentions:
But then look at the overall profiles of the aircraft
F-111
Mig-27
F-4
The main thing, for me, is that the F111 and Mig 27 are both bombers with swing wings.
Of course, the Mig 27 is also a single seat where the F111 is dual, same for one engine vs two, etcetra, etcetra.
Actually, I think most Floggers had a pilot and bombadier/navigator, but when they did they were set up in a fore aft cockpit, like our F14, while the F111 has pilot and bombadier/navigator in side by side seating (and the whole cockpit ejected as a pod with a big honking parachute for the whole thing!).
But CholeraJoe is right in that they ripped off design attributes of the F4, as well. They have a long history of stealing plans for American military equipment and building virtual duplicates. Check out the story of the TU-4 bomber.
>>[...]and have one metric ton more propulsion (12,300 kg./sec.) than its predecessor.
>Something wrong here. Thrust is measured in pounds or kilograms, not kilograms/second.
I presume they meant kilogram-meters/second-squared, which is a dumb way of saying newtons. A metric ton of mass at the Earth's surface weighs about 9,800 newtons, not too far from the 12,300 "kg/sec" mentioned.
Most probably the reason of mistake is that they take "kilogram of force" what is abbreviated in Russian as "kgs" for kg/c. ("C" means "S" in cyrillic alphabet).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.