Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues

Mikoyan LMFS 5 1.6 7

    Mikoyan LMFS

    Share

    Ogannisyan8887
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts: 73
    Points: 136
    Join date: 2011-01-07
    Age: 21

    Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Ogannisyan8887 on Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:12 am






    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_LMFS

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 9608
    Points: 10131
    Join date: 2010-03-30
    Location: New Zealand

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:26 pm

    I remember an interview with the director of UAC which stated that the Mig plan for a light 5th gen fighter was well developed but that they would wait till the T-50 was ready for production before further work so that work on the light 5th gen fighter didn't interfere with the main 5th gen fighter for Russia.

    Hopefully its cost can be minimised to the point where it can be bought in significant numbers by the Russian AF so that older non-stealthy aircraft can be replaced sooner.

    The Mig-21 was all about speed in a small and light package.

    This new fighter needs to be stealthy, but it also needs to be a jack of all trades with the ability to fight air and ground targets at one time with a wide range of types of modern ordinance yet be cheap to operate and support.

    A single engine type would be preferred.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 1267
    Points: 1505
    Join date: 2011-12-22

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  George1 on Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:01 pm

    GarryB wrote:I remember an interview with the director of UAC which stated that the Mig plan for a light 5th gen fighter was well developed but that they would wait till the T-50 was ready for production before further work so that work on the light 5th gen fighter didn't interfere with the main 5th gen fighter for Russia.

    Hopefully its cost can be minimised to the point where it can be bought in significant numbers by the Russian AF so that older non-stealthy aircraft can be replaced sooner.

    The Mig-21 was all about speed in a small and light package.

    This new fighter needs to be stealthy, but it also needs to be a jack of all trades with the ability to fight air and ground targets at one time with a wide range of types of modern ordinance yet be cheap to operate and support.

    A single engine type would be preferred.

    Any news on that project?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 9608
    Points: 10131
    Join date: 2010-03-30
    Location: New Zealand

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:18 pm

    There is talk that money is still in the Air Forces budget for Mig-35s which will be good for MiG... and the Air Force.

    It will at the same time show confidence in MiG, but also show there is room in the Air Force for smaller "numbers" planes.

    I would think in the longer term the role of smaller cheaper numbers planes will be taken by UCAVs, but it will take time for these to mature.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 1267
    Points: 1505
    Join date: 2011-12-22

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  George1 on Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:21 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    I would think in the longer term the role of smaller cheaper numbers planes will be taken by UCAVs, but it will take time for these to mature.

    Then why USA produced the expensive F-35?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 9608
    Points: 10131
    Join date: 2010-03-30
    Location: New Zealand

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:29 pm

    Because they have huge number of conventional fighters to replace in service and 189 F-22s simply wont do that job.

    They need a numbers plane and UCAV fighters are simply not mature enough for the role even in the west.

    The problem the US has is that the F-15 is out of production and the F-16 in all its wonderful variants is hard pushed to be comparable to the Su-35 which is new build stuff.

    Even the F-35 falls short of the Su-35 in many areas, but its key ingredient is its stealth, which the USAF is relying on to give it the edge.

    Will be interesting to see how much an F-35 costs, and how much a PAK FA costs...

    Export costs will also be interesting.

    Recently the UK admitted to spying on Russia using a device hidden in a rock about 6 years ago.
    The spying in itself is not strange but they denied it vigorously at the time because there was an agreement between Russia and the UK not to spy on each other.
    I remember Blair shrugged off the allegations as being "silly", but now it is clear he stone faced lied.

    The question is why would they come clean now?

    Are they actually realising that a closer relationship with Russia might actually be a good thing for them and if they keep treating Russia as the enemy then they will not make any profit while others are cashing in?

    The British oil company BP had a falling out with the Russian oil companies for contracts for oil drilling in the cold north of the country... and US companies jumped in and signed up contracts pretty rapidly.

    Who knows... maybe they are begining to realise the EU ship is not so safe and secure and that a good relationship with Russia might help save the EU, and put the UK in a better position that it will get hanging off Americas shirttails.

    Perhaps in 20 years time their might be a PAK FA with French electronics and British engines and other components on British and French carriers because it costs $80million compared with $200 million for an F-35 plus a 5 year wait and downgraded export stealth and avionics...

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 1267
    Points: 1505
    Join date: 2011-12-22

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  George1 on Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:33 pm

    GarryB wrote:Because they have huge number of conventional fighters to replace in service and 189 F-22s simply wont do that job.

    They need a numbers plane and UCAV fighters are simply not mature enough for the role even in the west.

    The problem the US has is that the F-15 is out of production and the F-16 in all its wonderful variants is hard pushed to be comparable to the Su-35 which is new build stuff.

    Even the F-35 falls short of the Su-35 in many areas, but its key ingredient is its stealth, which the USAF is relying on to give it the edge.

    Will be interesting to see how much an F-35 costs, and how much a PAK FA costs...

    Export costs will also be interesting.

    Recently the UK admitted to spying on Russia using a device hidden in a rock about 6 years ago.
    The spying in itself is not strange but they denied it vigorously at the time because there was an agreement between Russia and the UK not to spy on each other.
    I remember Blair shrugged off the allegations as being "silly", but now it is clear he stone faced lied.

    The question is why would they come clean now?

    Are they actually realising that a closer relationship with Russia might actually be a good thing for them and if they keep treating Russia as the enemy then they will not make any profit while others are cashing in?

    The British oil company BP had a falling out with the Russian oil companies for contracts for oil drilling in the cold north of the country... and US companies jumped in and signed up contracts pretty rapidly.

    Who knows... maybe they are begining to realise the EU ship is not so safe and secure and that a good relationship with Russia might help save the EU, and put the UK in a better position that it will get hanging off Americas shirttails.

    Perhaps in 20 years time their might be a PAK FA with French electronics and British engines and other components on British and French carriers because it costs $80million compared with $200 million for an F-35 plus a 5 year wait and downgraded export stealth and avionics...

    U think that Russian air force doesn't need a light multirole fighter as complement to PAK-FA?

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 4045
    Points: 4310
    Join date: 2011-12-07

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  TR1 on Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:17 pm

    It does (IMO), but we won't see anything until past 2020 at the earliest.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 9608
    Points: 10131
    Join date: 2010-03-30
    Location: New Zealand

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:36 am

    U think that Russian air force doesn't need a light multirole fighter as complement to PAK-FA?

    Yes, I do.

    But the urgency to develop and get one into service for Russia is nothing like it is for the west... in particular the US as the F-16 and F15 are getting a little long in the tooth. In Europe it is the Mirage 2000s and Tornados that will be replaced first by the F-35.

    Right now for Russia it makes more sense to produce Mig-35s and Su-35s and with that money spent in those companies they can work on a new light 5th gen fighter and the heavy 5th gen fighter respectively.

    The advantage of building your planes second is that even if you are behind in electronics it gives you a change to look at the enemy product and look at their experience and work out what is useful and what isn't.

    A good example of that is the Flanker was clearly designed as a counter to the Eagle.
    The Eagle came out with external conformal fuel tanks to increase range and performance without using up weapon pylons for external tanks.
    The Flanker was designed to have enormous internal capacity for fuel so it also didn't need to use external fuel tanks.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts: 590
    Points: 648
    Join date: 2011-09-13
    Age: 36
    Location: Indianapolis

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  SOC on Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:48 pm

    George1 wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    I would think in the longer term the role of smaller cheaper numbers planes will be taken by UCAVs, but it will take time for these to mature.

    Then why USA produced the expensive F-35?

    Because it wasn't supposed to be on par with the F-22 from a cost perspective. But then you have to consider that we are the undisputed masters of financial mismanagement.

    I think the deal with Japan was for somewhere around $80 million per jet though, so maybe the price is actually going to look better once the R&D costs go away. That's the main reason the B-2 looks so expensive on paper: you paid for the R&D costs over 21 airframes rather than 75-150. Hell, Lockheed claimed towards the end that they could build an F-22 for around $90 million, but still Congress said no.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 9608
    Points: 10131
    Join date: 2010-03-30
    Location: New Zealand

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:02 am

    Hell, Lockheed claimed towards the end that they could build an F-22 for around $90 million, but still Congress said no.

    Probably because congress knew they would say $90 but when they got the final product it would be closer to $200 and restarting production would be so expensive that Lockheed would then say they can make 50 more for $200 million per airframe or 500 more for $120 million per airframe.

    Either way the last airframes off the production line will cost $200 million each.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts: 590
    Points: 648
    Join date: 2011-09-13
    Age: 36
    Location: Indianapolis

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  SOC on Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:19 am

    GarryB wrote:Probably because congress knew they would say $90 but when they got the final product it would be closer to $200 and restarting production would be so expensive that Lockheed would then say they can make 50 more for $200 million per airframe or 500 more for $120 million per airframe.

    I'll have to find where I got the number. This was probably about two years before the last jet came off the line, maybe even a bit earlier than that. So you wouldn't be re-starting production at the juncture when they put the figure out there. At any rate, like any production line, the gist of it was that they'd been streamlining the process. Part of the overall confusion in things like this is that there are about four hundred iterations of how to look at a price tag, it seems. Do you factor in lifecycle costs? R&D? Flyaway cost? Unit cost? I will say that their ~$90 million USD figure probably would've been closer to ~95 or ~100 (depending on if it was on the high or low end of the 90's) simply because they might not be including the engines.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 4045
    Points: 4310
    Join date: 2011-12-07

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  TR1 on Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:10 am

    Very true. For example Su-34 costs the RuAF like 30 million a piece. Ridiculously low right? Well, factor in development, testing, NAPO modernization, sensor suit and ECW work, and the real number will certainly be substantially higher.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 3801
    Points: 4134
    Join date: 2010-05-08
    Age: 37
    Location: India

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Austin on Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:08 am

    The problem with F-22 is beyond cost , for an aircraft that would spend 30 hours on ground for every hour it flies and has high maintenace stealth features , there are not many country that can afford those , infact i can only think of USAF being able to afford not just the initial high cost but the expensive maintenance cost of F-22.

    Lockheed's F-22 Raptor – a maintenance nightmare
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2292127/posts

    High-Maintenance F-22 Stealth Features Keeping It in the Shop
    http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/alerts/national-security/ns-f22-20090220.html


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 1267
    Points: 1505
    Join date: 2011-12-22

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  George1 on Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:32 pm

    Russia eyes second 5th generation fighter

    Russian media and military pundits have been heatedly discussing a second project of a cutting-edge fifth generation fighter that may join the Russian air force. A strong argument in favour of this backup project is competition, although such duplication of effort isn’t always a good thing.

    The proposal to develop a second project of the fifth generation fighter was made by Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who has recently been put at the helm of the Russian defense industry. He first voiced the idea of developing a second fifth generation fighter in February 2012. Since then, the ministry itself has never either backed or dismissed it. Some experts believe the project could be assigned to the Mikoyan design bureau, the only bureau in Russia capable of tackling this task on a par with Sukhoi, which is already developing the T-50 aircraft of the PAK FA series (Promising Aviation Complex Tactical Aviation).

    According to Mr. Rogozin, competition clearly speaks in favour of this initiative. Addressing the Federation Council, the upper house of the Russian Parliament, the deputy prime minister stressed that the Russian air force should have not one but two types of tactical fighters. The PAK FA aircraft is set to go into service by 2016.

    Historically, the Russian air force has always had at least two types of tactical fighter jets in its fleet that basically supplemented instead of competing against each other. The existing MiG-29/Su-27 duet serves as a good example. The Su-27 has a longer range and is fitted with more powerful equipment and avionics, while the MiG-29 is lighter, less expensive to maintain and is better adapted for rough-field deployment.

    The chronic lack of financing, which the Russian military faced in 1990s, forced it to put all its eggs into one basket and choose only one fighter plane as its ‘perspective tactical aircraft.’ The choice fell on the Su-27, favoured for a larger spectrum of combat capabilities and better flight performance compared to its MiG-29 rival. This status quo is here to stay, since the tested T-50 jet belongs to the so-called ‘heavy-class fighters’.

    The potential niche for a second fifth generation fighter has thus been determined. It has to be a lighter, cheaper and simpler sort of aircraft, compared to the more ‘advanced’ T-50 plane. “A light aircraft would only make sense if its characteristics were brought closer to the heavier [T-50] fighter. First of all, we’re talking about the engines,” Russian military pundit Konstantin Bogdanov told The Voice of Russia. “If they developed an aircraft that would be powered by a single ‘Device 117,’ or a second-stage T-50 engine, this jet would be of interest both to the Russian air force and to the foreign market. However, in the foreign market, it would have to compete against the F-35, which would occupy the best niches by the time our lightweight fighter entered the market.”

    According to Mr. Bogdanov, a cutting-edge light aircraft can attract the attention of the military. “Since the Russian air force shows no intention to purchase MiG-35 jets, they could be potentially interested in replacing the old MiG-29 fleet with brand new fighters.”

    Still, Andrei Fomin, Editor-in-Chief of the “Vzlyot” (“Takeoff”) aviation magazine, doubts the potential of such aircraft. “As far as I can judge, the approved Russian State Armaments Program doesn’t provide for a second fifth generation fighter project, apart from the T-50. The fact that the Defense Ministry is going to cough up for the completion and the launching of the T-50 fighters, as well as mass production of a whole array of other types of hardware, dwarfs the chances of having a second project. This plan could perhaps be fulfilled in the context of international cooperation if Russia could attract one or more foreign investors.”

    In a nutshell, a light fighter project is only worth the effort if it is brought as close as possible to the T-50. In that case, the new fighter will be assigned to the Sukhoi design bureau, which will effectively leave Mikoyan out in the cold again. Still, there is a clear demand for this kind of aircraft and it has been brought into the spotlight. Only time will tell what becomes of it.

    http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_03_13/68341923/

      Current date/time is Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:30 pm