Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Interesting news either way....at least we'll have an idea what it looks like
+63
gbu48098
x_54_u43
Big_Gazza
wilhelm
TMA1
zepia
lyle6
Backman
mnztr
lancelot
The-thing-next-door
Sujoy
KoTeMoRe
Singular_Transform
Tsavo Lion
thegopnik
SeigSoloyvov
dino00
GunshipDemocracy
ATLASCUB
miketheterrible
Admin
Rodion_Romanovic
Hole
marcellogo
GarryB
LMFS
Svyatoslavich
OminousSpudd
Rmf
hoom
Azi
PapaDragon
kvs
eridan
Isos
Cyberspec
rtech
Flanky
medo
sepheronx
GJ Flanker
EKS
AlfaT8
Book.
Mike E
Flyingdutchman
Stealthflanker
mack8
Werewolf
magnumcromagnon
collegeboy16
sheytanelkebir
CaptainPakistan
Firebird
KomissarBojanchev
Viktor
gloriousfatherland
Austin
SOC
TR1
George1
Ogannisyan8887
67 posters
5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS
Cyberspec- Posts : 2904
Points : 3057
Join date : 2011-08-08
Location : Terra Australis
mack8- Posts : 1039
Points : 1093
Join date : 2013-08-02
I don't know if this is wishful thinking from my part, but here is what has been released from MiG. Is this the first glimpe of the LMFS project?
From bmpd:
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2396643.html
PS: Unfortunately, perhaps it's just a notional nose model of T-50, the image comes from this video, see at 22:15 minute
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgnyb-pnsw0
From bmpd:
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2396643.html
PS: Unfortunately, perhaps it's just a notional nose model of T-50, the image comes from this video, see at 22:15 minute
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgnyb-pnsw0
George1- Posts : 18319
Points : 18816
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
Not by PAK FA Alone: Russia's MiG Corporation to Develop 5th-Generation Fighters
George1- Posts : 18319
Points : 18816
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
Posted image and data of the new Russian light fighter LMFS 
The French magazine "Air & Cosmos" published projections οf light multi-purpose front-line aircraft (LMFS), which leads the development of RAC "MiG". The accompanying description states that the development of aircraft is carried out at the expense of own funds of KB, and future aircraft should come to replace the MiG-29 and MiG-35.
The aircraft has aerodynamic configuration "duck", his take-off weight is up to 15 tons, maximum takeoff weight is - 25 tons. The aircraft will be equipped with two turbojet engines VK-10M development of CB "Klimov" with a thrust of 10 tons each. LMFS maximum speed should be from 1.8 to 2 m, and range with drop tanks - 4000 km. Arms will be placed in the inner compartments.
Alternative LMFS can get one engine type unknown to today. It can be the engine "product 30", developed for fighter T-50.
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2430909.html
i think just like Mig-29 was a small Su-27, LMFS is a small PAK-FA
The French magazine "Air & Cosmos" published projections οf light multi-purpose front-line aircraft (LMFS), which leads the development of RAC "MiG". The accompanying description states that the development of aircraft is carried out at the expense of own funds of KB, and future aircraft should come to replace the MiG-29 and MiG-35.
The aircraft has aerodynamic configuration "duck", his take-off weight is up to 15 tons, maximum takeoff weight is - 25 tons. The aircraft will be equipped with two turbojet engines VK-10M development of CB "Klimov" with a thrust of 10 tons each. LMFS maximum speed should be from 1.8 to 2 m, and range with drop tanks - 4000 km. Arms will be placed in the inner compartments.
Alternative LMFS can get one engine type unknown to today. It can be the engine "product 30", developed for fighter T-50.
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2430909.html
i think just like Mig-29 was a small Su-27, LMFS is a small PAK-FA
Isos- Posts : 11301
Points : 11271
Join date : 2015-11-06
i think just like Mig-29 was a small Su-27, LMFS is a small PAK-FA
If it's the design of LMFS, it has nothing to do with Pak fa. It's a delta plane. Theengines are hidden like on western plane "S design". The canards size suppose that they won't have the same utility than on pak fa.
But it looks more like a fan art than the true design. When they presented the Mig-35 they said they will start a 5th generation so their is no way a french magazin had access to such a data.
eridan- Posts : 188
Points : 194
Join date : 2012-12-13
Next offering from MiG needs to a single engined 10-12 ton plane (empty weight), using Pak-Fa's second gen engine. Anything else and I don't believe it'd have as much traction/sales.
kvs
kvs- Posts : 15132
Points : 15269
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
eridan wrote:Next offering from MiG needs to a single engined 10-12 ton plane (empty weight), using Pak-Fa's second gen engine. Anything else and I don't believe it'd have as much traction/sales.
Obsessing about categories is nonsense. The Mig-35 is a fine example, it can carry twice the payload of the Mig-29 which messes up its
categorization. In the battlefield any extra resource helps.
They should stealthify the Mig-35 with some obvious tweaks and they will be 90% of the way there.
Isos- Posts : 11301
Points : 11271
Join date : 2015-11-06
They should stealthify the Mig-35 with some obvious tweaks and they will be 90% of the way there.
US did this with silent hornets and F-15 Silent eagle. Its not really a good idea because it cost as much as a 5th generation fighter and R&D for it needs to solve issues with integration of an internal bay on a 4 generation fighter which was not made to have one. If they move the engines, it moves the gravity center and they need to do all the simulation again.
They could however just design another 5 generation Aircraft with all the electronics of the Mig-35. I mean the Mig-35 in another body. It would be perfect as it would have decent electronics and reduced RCS, reduced drag so more range.
Their is no need for an all new fighter as they have Pak Fa.
Guest- Guest
eridan wrote:Next offering from MiG needs to a single engined 10-12 ton plane (empty weight), using Pak-Fa's second gen engine. Anything else and I don't believe it'd have as much traction/sales.
Agreed, single engined fighter has place in RuAF too and has good export market as there are very few oponents atm on the market, F-16 is getting out of production probably soon, which basically leaves only Gripen NG and Chinese fighters in game.
PapaDragon- Posts : 13277
Points : 13319
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
George1 wrote:[b][size=13].............
....................
This is very crude sketch but if it is accurate then it looks like they went with same angled engine approach as with T-50 to hide engine fans.
Two engine approach could be economical if engines they go with are not too over the top and are cheap to make.
kvs- Posts : 15132
Points : 15269
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
Isos wrote:They should stealthify the Mig-35 with some obvious tweaks and they will be 90% of the way there.
US did this with silent hornets and F-15 Silent eagle. Its not really a good idea because it cost as much as a 5th generation fighter and R&D for it needs to solve issues with integration of an internal bay on a 4 generation fighter which was not made to have one. If they move the engines, it moves the gravity center and they need to do all the simulation again.
They could however just design another 5 generation Aircraft with all the electronics of the Mig-35. I mean the Mig-35 in another body. It would be perfect as it would have decent electronics and reduced RCS, reduced drag so more range.
Their is no need for an all new fighter as they have Pak Fa.
No the US did not do what I suggest at all. If Russia is going to design a new stealth jet then they should start with the Mig-35 frame
and make modifications instead of starting from scratch and especially with a single jet engine. This is definitely a cheaper option. One-engine
fetish customers can go and buy NATO products.
The stealthified Mig-35 can keep the current engines for as long as necessary. There is no need for a delta wing design. Anything that increases
the cross section is bad for stealth, regardless of RAM coatings. There is also no need to hide all the missiles inside a closed compartment. The
cross section increase from the missiles is negligible. A lot of what people consider as "essential" for stealth is solidly in diminishing returns territory.
Spending 90% of the effort/money to deal with 10% extra gain in stealth characteristics is just stupid.
GarryB- Posts : 39006
Points : 39502
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
There is only so much you can do to make an existing design stealthy.
It is much cheaper and easier to design a new design from scratch that is stealthy.
In terms of single or twin engine I think twins make sense as spacing them apart means space for internal weapons bays and having separated engines allows for differential thrust on thrust vectoring... adding manovuer performance outside the normal flight envelope.
For instance with a plane like a Gripen or F-16 or an aircraft with two engines very close together like a Rafale or Eurofighter or F-18 you can direct thrust up or down, but if you move one engine exhaust up and the other down they will cancel each other out or if you only have one engine you can push one way only.
The result is that the TVC engines can push the tail of the aircraft up or down or left or right but that is all.
In an aircraft with widely separated engines it can still push the tail left or right or up or down, but by pointing one engine nozzle up and one down you can roll the aircraft... at very low or no speed this is critical... an F-16 that has stalled with TVC can point its nose up or down or left or right but has no ability to roll.
An Su-35 with TVC can roll in either direction and then move its nose to follow any threat in any direction... keeping its enormous radar pointed at a target and its missiles and gun also pointed at that same target.
Two medium powered engines are cheaper than one very high thrust engine.
It is much cheaper and easier to design a new design from scratch that is stealthy.
In terms of single or twin engine I think twins make sense as spacing them apart means space for internal weapons bays and having separated engines allows for differential thrust on thrust vectoring... adding manovuer performance outside the normal flight envelope.
For instance with a plane like a Gripen or F-16 or an aircraft with two engines very close together like a Rafale or Eurofighter or F-18 you can direct thrust up or down, but if you move one engine exhaust up and the other down they will cancel each other out or if you only have one engine you can push one way only.
The result is that the TVC engines can push the tail of the aircraft up or down or left or right but that is all.
In an aircraft with widely separated engines it can still push the tail left or right or up or down, but by pointing one engine nozzle up and one down you can roll the aircraft... at very low or no speed this is critical... an F-16 that has stalled with TVC can point its nose up or down or left or right but has no ability to roll.
An Su-35 with TVC can roll in either direction and then move its nose to follow any threat in any direction... keeping its enormous radar pointed at a target and its missiles and gun also pointed at that same target.
Two medium powered engines are cheaper than one very high thrust engine.
Isos- Posts : 11301
Points : 11271
Join date : 2015-11-06
kvs wrote:
No the US did not do what I suggest at all. If Russia is going to design a new stealth jet then they should start with the Mig-35 frame
and make modifications instead of starting from scratch and especially with a single jet engine. This is definitely a cheaper option. One-engine
fetish customers can go and buy NATO products.
The stealthified Mig-35 can keep the current engines for as long as necessary. There is no need for a delta wing design. Anything that increases
the cross section is bad for stealth, regardless of RAM coatings. There is also no need to hide all the missiles inside a closed compartment. The
cross section increase from the missiles is negligible. A lot of what people consider as "essential" for stealth is solidly in diminishing returns territory.
Spending 90% of the effort/money to deal with 10% extra gain in stealth characteristics is just stupid.
Well, India which is the bigest client of Russia will go for 200+ Nato single engine fighter (Grippen or F-16) so it's a contract of tens of billions $ where Russian companies can't even propose something... + they will need at least some 100 carrier based fighter for their future Catobar, again Russia won't participate.
They did what they could to make the Mig-35 as stealthy as possible and be relatively cheap. If you want what you said, they will need to increase the cost. So it's better to go for a new fighter.
The rcs of missile+pylons increase the total rcs. If you look from the top, it's negligeable but if your fighter is at 11 km in altitude, the ground based radars will spot it more easily, specially if it carries R-77 with their radar reflectors grid fins.
I don't really get what you are saying. You want them to improve stealth but by not touching the design, not hidding missiles ... Their is no a super paint that can hide your fighter. The simple geometry of the design of 5 generation fighter and the use of composite participate more to the stealth than the paint.
THe mig-35 is the last of the serie. There won't be improved versions.
This is very crude sketch but if it is accurate then it looks like they went with same angled engine approach as with T-50 to hide engine fans.
Two engine approach could be economical if engines they go with are not too over the top and are cheap to make.
They will probably keep Mig-35 engines. They are very good even if they haven't got supercruise. F-35 haven't got it too. Like I said if they want a cheap fighter they will just change the airframe not avionics and engines.
Agreed, single engined fighter has place in RuAF too and has good export market as there are very few oponents atm on the market, F-16 is getting out of production probably soon, which basically leaves only Gripen NG and Chinese fighters in game.
Yes like I said They could have proposed it to India which have to chose now between two bad Aircraft GRIPPEN and F-16. F-16 is outdated. Grippen is produced by too many countries so they will probably issues with the transfert of technologies that India wants.
Guest- Guest
Isos wrote:Yes like I said They could have proposed it to India which have to chose now between two bad Aircraft GRIPPEN and F-16. F-16 is outdated. Grippen is produced by too many countries so they will probably issues with the transfert of technologies that India wants.
I wouldnt say that F-16 Block 60/62/V is outdated, its very modern and capable aircraft, however its soon reaching pinnacle of its modernisation capabilities in terms of cooling for electronical components, engine power etc.
Gripen NG on other hand as of now looks like great aircraft, what i do not like about it is the component suppliers which come from basically everywhere, Germany, Sweden, UK, USA and optionally bunch of other countries like Brasil, Israel, Italy, France... depending on too many sides is not very.. healthy.
Isos- Posts : 11301
Points : 11271
Join date : 2015-11-06
Militarov wrote:Isos wrote:Yes like I said They could have proposed it to India which have to chose now between two bad Aircraft GRIPPEN and F-16. F-16 is outdated. Grippen is produced by too many countries so they will probably issues with the transfert of technologies that India wants.
I wouldnt say that F-16 Block 60/62/V is outdated, its very modern and capable aircraft, however its soon reaching pinnacle of its modernisation capabilities in terms of cooling for electronical components, engine power etc.
Gripen NG on other hand as of now looks like great aircraft, what i do not like about it is the component suppliers which come from basically everywhere, Germany, Sweden, UK, USA and optionally bunch of other countries like Brasil, Israel, Italy, France... depending on too many sides is not very.. healthy.
For a big country like India, F-16 is too small and against future chinese stealth fighter its very small radar is totaly useless.
Look what swiss air force said about grippen, it's not that good.
Guest- Guest
Isos wrote:Militarov wrote:Isos wrote:Yes like I said They could have proposed it to India which have to chose now between two bad Aircraft GRIPPEN and F-16. F-16 is outdated. Grippen is produced by too many countries so they will probably issues with the transfert of technologies that India wants.
I wouldnt say that F-16 Block 60/62/V is outdated, its very modern and capable aircraft, however its soon reaching pinnacle of its modernisation capabilities in terms of cooling for electronical components, engine power etc.
Gripen NG on other hand as of now looks like great aircraft, what i do not like about it is the component suppliers which come from basically everywhere, Germany, Sweden, UK, USA and optionally bunch of other countries like Brasil, Israel, Italy, France... depending on too many sides is not very.. healthy.
For a big country like India, F-16 is too small and against future chinese stealth fighter its very small radar is totaly useless.
Look what swiss air force said about grippen, it's not that good.
Its not too small, every airforce requires multirole aircraft that has low flying hour cost to take the every day load on itself. India insists on single engine multirole fighter to suplement more expensive platforms, so did many other countries like Japan, US, Italy, China...
If you base your airforce purely on twin engine fighters in 30+ t loaded class, you are going to face number of issues.
Isos- Posts : 11301
Points : 11271
Join date : 2015-11-06
Its not too small, every airforce requires multirole aircraft that has low flying hour cost to take the every day load on itself. India insists on single engine multirole fighter to suplement more expensive platforms, so did many other countries like Japan, US, Italy, China...
If you base your airforce purely on twin engine fighters in 30+ t loaded class, you are going to face number of issues.
I know but if you look at what every country will buy in Asia (J-20, F-35, su-35) F-16 is no better than upgrading their Mig-21 bison again. I'm not saying they don't need such a fighter I'm saying that they haven't still chose so they probably should go for a little bit bigger stealth Mig with Mig-35 avionics, radars ... and, why not, just one engine and co produced with Russia, which will cost half the price of an f-16.
And Indian air force hasn't got many tanker so if they buy a small fighter in quantity they will need many tanker too, just look how wastern airforces use intensively them for any mission they do. The advantage of Sukhoi is that they cover all their territory not the case of a F-16 or a grippen (Swiss tests show that they have awefull autonomy and their policing capabilities are overestimated by Saab an the cost per hour was double than that said by Saab).
Issues are not really related to the weight, any modern Aircraft has issues and need several hour of maintenance for 1 hours of flight. That's why India wants to produce them localy so they can produce parts they need in the future.
My idea is that Mig is just trying to survive and I'm not sure Russia will save them. These projects of LMFS and Mig-41 have not started yet and the Mig-35 won't be a success at all as no more countries want 4 generation Aircraft and those who want 5th gen are producing their own (Japan, Sweeden, Corea, Turkey...) The others don't have money for buying lot of fighters. Even Russian air force doesn't need Mig-35 but something better.
The biggest clients ( India and Algeria) are done with Mig.
GarryB- Posts : 39006
Points : 39502
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Well, India which is the bigest client of Russia will go for 200+ Nato single engine fighter (Grippen or F-16) so it's a contract of tens of billions $ where Russian companies can't even propose something... + they will need at least some 100 carrier based fighter for their future Catobar, again Russia won't participate.
India already stated it did not want MiG-35s or MiG-29s because it did not want an all Russian air fleet... so there is little point in developing a single engined fighter to please India if they will show no interest anyway.
A cheap light fighter is a cheap light fighter... whether it has one, two or ten engines.
They did what they could to make the Mig-35 as stealthy as possible and be relatively cheap. If you want what you said, they will need to increase the cost. So it's better to go for a new fighter.
No they did not. There was never any requirement to keep the MiG-35 cheap.
The MiG-29M2 is the cheap option.
The rcs of missile+pylons increase the total rcs. If you look from the top, it's negligeable but if your fighter is at 11 km in altitude, the ground based radars will spot it more easily, specially if it carries R-77 with their radar reflectors grid fins.
Those rear grid fins can fold forward and have almost zero RCS.
THe mig-35 is the last of the serie. There won't be improved versions.
Stop looking at the US for your views.
The MiG-35 and Su-35 will operate in parallel in service with the PAK FA.
Stealth aircraft wont replace all other aircraft.
They are very good even if they haven't got supercruise. F-35 haven't got it too. Like I said if they want a cheap fighter they will just change the airframe not avionics and engines.
It is easy to make a cheap stealth fighter... don't make it 0.00001m stealthy... make it 0.5m stealthy and make hundreds of them cheaply.
Yes like I said They could have proposed it to India which have to chose now between two bad Aircraft GRIPPEN and F-16. F-16 is outdated. Grippen is produced by too many countries so they will probably issues with the transfert of technologies that India wants.
Even if they had a light 5th gen fighter already developed and ready for production India wont take it because it is another Russian aircraft and they have said they don't want an all Russian air fleet.
For a big country like India, F-16 is too small and against future chinese stealth fighter its very small radar is totaly useless.
For a big country like Russia a MiG-21 was not too small...
I know but if you look at what every country will buy in Asia (J-20, F-35, su-35) F-16 is no better than upgrading their Mig-21 bison again. I'm not saying they don't need such a fighter I'm saying that they haven't still chose so they probably should go for a little bit bigger stealth Mig with Mig-35 avionics, radars ... and, why not, just one engine and co produced with Russia, which will cost half the price of an f-16.
What is your fixation with single engine aircraft?
Is the B-52 a rubbish aircraft because it has 8 engines?
The advantage of Sukhoi is that they cover all their territory not the case of a F-16 or a grippen
90% of the time Russian Flankers fly with half their internal fuel tanks empty.
Being able to fly 1,000km to a target means it take an hour to get to your target.
My idea is that Mig is just trying to survive and I'm not sure Russia will save them.
MiG is not a company... it is one department of a large company. Its survival is assured no matter what.
MiG is making MiG-35s for the Russian AF, and will likely make a replacement interceptor for the Aerospace defence forces. They will also likely make a few UAVs and UCAVs.
Mig-35 won't be a success at all as no more countries want 4 generation Aircraft and those who want 5th gen are producing their own (Japan, Sweeden, Corea, Turkey...)
Hahahaha... I would take a MiG-35 over any 5th gen fighter made in Europe... even on cost alone. You could have 4 MiG-35s for the price of a french Rafale... how much would a 5th gen French fighter cost...
Even Russian air force doesn't need Mig-35 but something better.
The MiG-35 will be an excellent fighter bomber... you clearly underestimate it... but this is nothing new.
The biggest clients ( India and Algeria) are done with Mig.
Their loss. BTW MiG is upgrading Indias MiGs and is supplying the Indian Navy with carrier based MiGs... so how is India giving up MiG?
Or are you just reading the same western media that said Clinton would be president?
Isos- Posts : 11301
Points : 11271
Join date : 2015-11-06
Garry, I'm not a pro western because I think Mig-35 was developed and put in servce too late. It's my favourite plane actually. But its export market is very limited because all countries that can affoard a true fighter in big numbers have already bought 4.5 generation aircrafts and are buying 5th generation.
I have no fixation with signle engine, Militarov suggested that it should be single engine and I said why not. Read carrefully and don't make me say what I didn't.
India says lot of thing but at the end they still want Russian stuff because it's cheaper than producing their own or buying western.
That's exactly what I said. A new stealthy design but with Mig-35 "interior" and it would have far better export potentiel. When you think someone is talking badly about russian stuff, you don't know what you are reading ... calm down and read carrefully.
Mig 21 was for interception around the airbases and because they had lot of them, it was not too small. Why do you think the Mig-29 SMT has its dorsal tanker ? because Mig-29 have a small combat range and the airforce can't affoard as much of them as Mig-21. It's a fact.
Building an Airport near it and sending fighters their take more than 1 hour I think. The fighters will be used against China, Pakistan or naval threats, look at a map, they will need to fly far longer than 1000 km. All the airfields near the borders will be destroyed.
Against a Rafale with meteor, don't forget you Chaffs and ECM package. And how many of them can GarryLand airforce buy ?? It's amateurisme to think you can buy 4 jets instead of 1 because of their "price". Like I said their is no more countries which need a 4.5 fighter, maybe they will achieve to sell 10 in Africa, no more.
Loss of Mig. India will go for their future carrier for western Aircraft. The modernization cost less than 1 billion, for less aircrafts Dassault modernized for 2 billion$. It's not by maintaining the 80 or so Inidan Aircraft in condition that they will survive. Mig cost lot of money to the "big company" so they will probably close their facilities. Its survivability is not assured, Russian are not stupid to put money in somthing that is not selling anything. Your are stupid if you think the opposit. Pak fa will be navalized so it's one more competitor for future carrier.
I don't need western media or Russian media to have an opinion about a plane.
I have no fixation with signle engine, Militarov suggested that it should be single engine and I said why not. Read carrefully and don't make me say what I didn't.
India says lot of thing but at the end they still want Russian stuff because it's cheaper than producing their own or buying western.
It is easy to make a cheap stealth fighter... don't make it 0.00001m stealthy... make it 0.5m stealthy and make hundreds of them cheaply.
That's exactly what I said. A new stealthy design but with Mig-35 "interior" and it would have far better export potentiel. When you think someone is talking badly about russian stuff, you don't know what you are reading ... calm down and read carrefully.
Mig 21 was for interception around the airbases and because they had lot of them, it was not too small. Why do you think the Mig-29 SMT has its dorsal tanker ? because Mig-29 have a small combat range and the airforce can't affoard as much of them as Mig-21. It's a fact.
Being able to fly 1,000km to a target means it take an hour to get to your target
Building an Airport near it and sending fighters their take more than 1 hour I think. The fighters will be used against China, Pakistan or naval threats, look at a map, they will need to fly far longer than 1000 km. All the airfields near the borders will be destroyed.
Hahahaha... I would take a MiG-35 over any 5th gen fighter made in Europe... even on cost alone. You could have 4 MiG-35s for the price of a french Rafale... how much would a 5th gen French fighter cost...
Against a Rafale with meteor, don't forget you Chaffs and ECM package. And how many of them can GarryLand airforce buy ?? It's amateurisme to think you can buy 4 jets instead of 1 because of their "price". Like I said their is no more countries which need a 4.5 fighter, maybe they will achieve to sell 10 in Africa, no more.
Their loss. BTW MiG is upgrading Indias MiGs and is supplying the Indian Navy with carrier based MiGs... so how is India giving up MiG?
Or are you just reading the same western media that said Clinton would be president?
Loss of Mig. India will go for their future carrier for western Aircraft. The modernization cost less than 1 billion, for less aircrafts Dassault modernized for 2 billion$. It's not by maintaining the 80 or so Inidan Aircraft in condition that they will survive. Mig cost lot of money to the "big company" so they will probably close their facilities. Its survivability is not assured, Russian are not stupid to put money in somthing that is not selling anything. Your are stupid if you think the opposit. Pak fa will be navalized so it's one more competitor for future carrier.
I don't need western media or Russian media to have an opinion about a plane.
GarryB- Posts : 39006
Points : 39502
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Garry, I'm not a pro western because I think Mig-35 was developed and put in servce too late.
It is not a pro west or anti Russian issue.
There was no point in putting the MiG-35 into service 20 years ago because it would have been the MiG-29M... the Russian military didn't need MiG-29SMTs let alone MiG-29Ms or anything else.
The fact of the matter it is only now that they are actually spending money on new sophisticated weapons and are upping their technology in areas of recon and jamming and EW that there is even any point in making MiG-35s.
I will repeat the MiG-35 is a much better deal for Russia than an F-35... it will be cheaper, faster, have better range, and be much better armed and equipped to deal with a much wider range of roles and problems than the one trick white elephant F-35.
But its export market is very limited because all countries that can affoard a true fighter in big numbers have already bought 4.5 generation aircrafts and are buying 5th generation.
And they will find what Russia knows and what the US will eventually work out... they can't afford hundreds of stealth fighters... the purchase price plus operational costs will be unaffordable. So they need a cheaper aircraft that is just as capable... Hmmm... perhaps a 4th gen fighter with 5th gen avionics and systems.... LIKE THE MIG-35 and SU-35.... 1234...
Forget the plus bullshit.
It is not stealth fighters that kill planes it is missiles... if the AAMs of a PAK FA can shoot down an F-22 or F-35 then they can do the same from a non stealthy plane too... so why waste money on having all your planes stealthy and expensive to keep stealthy?
I have no fixation with signle engine, Militarov suggested that it should be single engine and I said why not. Read carrefully and don't make me say what I didn't.
You talked about single engines being a requirement for India in the portion of your post I responded to and I was responding to that.
India says lot of thing but at the end they still want Russian stuff because it's cheaper than producing their own or buying western.
India has been fairly consistent and pretty clear about what they want... they have Flankers in service and they are working on a new stealthy Sukhoi aircraft and they want a mixed fleet from different countries... which is why they held a competition to find something else to replace some non russian aircraft in their fleet... you could argue they wanted to replace their Mirage 2Ks with rafales and the whole exercise was to get the aircraft for a price... which failed miserably.
I am biased but I would have gone for a mix of MiG-35s and 30-40 Rafales and get the best of both worlds but they wanted French planes and they did not want and dont want more Russian planes no matter what the cost... if cost had anything to do with it the Rafale and Typhoon would not have even been considered.
India has Tegas and a medium stealth fighter project... if they wanted MiGs it would be easy enough to get them involved in either or both of those programmes... and it hasn't happened.
A new stealthy design but with Mig-35 "interior" and it would have far better export potentiel. When you think someone is talking badly about russian stuff, you don't know what you are reading ... calm down and read carrefully.
Don't take my posts so personally... it was not all directed at you.
An F-22 basically has a MiG-25 exterior... there is no reason why a MiG-35s exterior could not be used for a semi stealthy design... why redesign the wheel?
Aerodynamically it is perfectly fine already.
Mig 21 was for interception around the airbases and because they had lot of them, it was not too small. Why do you think the Mig-29 SMT has its dorsal tanker ? because Mig-29 have a small combat range and the airforce can't affoard as much of them as Mig-21. It's a fact.
Two MiG-29s are vastly more use than one Su-27 even if one Su-27 can offer coverage of the same volume of space... the whole point of MiG-35s is so you don't try to defend a huge country with a few hundred planes.
Building an Airport near it and sending fighters their take more than 1 hour I think. The fighters will be used against China, Pakistan or naval threats, look at a map, they will need to fly far longer than 1000 km. All the airfields near the borders will be destroyed.
You miss the point... MiG-35s can operate from strips of road. Thinking you can get away with 200 Su-35s instead of 400 MiG-35s, means that if you are trying to cover the same airspace you will have enormous holes in your defences.
Flankers have better radar range and better flight range, but two MiG-35s can be in two places at once and with inflight refuelling the MiG-35 can cover any sort of area you need anyway.
Against a Rafale with meteor, don't forget you
RVV-BD outranges meteor and also likely has a higher flight speed and four.
Chaffs and ECM package.
Yeah, cos MiG-35s are defenceless...
And how many of them can GarryLand airforce buy ?
Russia is buying about 180 MiG-35s to begin with... after they paid for Rafales the French would likely refuse to deliver them and then sell them to Brazil so they would have no Rafales.
It's amateurisme to think you can buy 4 jets instead of 1 because of their "price".
India had a budget of 10 billion dollars to buy 126 fighters... after a decade of testing and negotiations they ended up buying how many? About 36 wasn't it?
If they were cheaper they would have bought the amount they wanted ...126. Because their prices were enormously inflated they ended up buying 36... but lets wait to see if they even manage that...
Like I said their is no more countries which need a 4.5 fighter, maybe they will achieve to sell 10 in Africa, no more.
80% of the worlds air forces will never be able to afford a stealth fighter in the next 50 years. 60% of the worlds airforces could actually get by with a Lead in fighter trainer for the job... and that includes most of eastern europe... not that they would ever admit to such.
Loss of Mig. India will go for their future carrier for western Aircraft.
MiG won in India for naval aircraft because they don't want big carriers and don't have cat technology. They could possibly buy it from Britain or France... but Britain has not plane to sell with it because they don't have any cat launched carrier aircraft since they retired the Buc and the F-4. The French will sell cat technology if India buy Rafales to go with them... so 20 billion for the planes... 20 billion for planes that are not even stealthy...
Only other option is American and India has no good history with the US... a huge risk for either an F-18 or an F-35... the former of which is no better than the MiG-29K, and the latter... well... what strings are attached and how many Indian pilots will die to find out it is a dog too.
Mig cost lot of money to the "big company" so they will probably close their facilities.
Of course... UAC will close down MiG... and who will make the 180 odd MiG-35s the Russian AF wants? Who will maintain the MiG-31s in service or the MiG-29s in service?
India did not want all its planes to come from Russia so it looks at French planes... but the UAC is dumb as fuck and just wants Sukhoi to make planes in Russia... or just maybe you are wrong.
Its survivability is not assured, Russian are not stupid to put money in somthing that is not selling anything. Your are stupid if you think the opposit.
Excellent logic their my friend... MiG is not guaranteed to survive... I agree... Russians wont put money into something that does not make money or sell products or provide capability.... I agree too, I am stupid if I disagree with the previous two points... fair enough... I can agree to that too.
My problem is that why do you think the points you have made suddenly magically make the Russian Airforce remove all MiG-29s from service and all MiG-31s and any replacement for said aircraft and have cancelled their order and requirement for MiG-35s and of course the Russian Navy has also withdrawn/cancelled their MiG-29Ks.
Using YOUR LOGIC... MiG is just fine for the next 10-20 years at least.
If anything actually happens regarding a MiG designed small light 5th gen fighter then their existence is assured for even longer.
Isos- Posts : 11301
Points : 11271
Join date : 2015-11-06
Well I get what you said but I still think a more stealthy airframe would have been better for the export potentiel and the for the capabilities of the Aircraft. Stealth is very usefull for modern fighter even if it's not, like US fanboy thinks, a super power which will make you win a war. But it's still a very nice plane and very capable.
India wants more the transfert of western technology for their domestical programs than not having just russian stuff. But the fact is that they are not mature to develope their own things and westerns are not going to give them their best technology for low prices. That's what happened with Dassault, they wanted a factory for the rafale, rafales, ToT, meteors ... for very low prices that's why at the end they went for just 36 Rafales. The final contract has nothing to do with what they wanted.
This the same with Grigorovitch frigates. They localy produce their own Shivalik class frigate which are bigger and "improved" Talwar class and have the project 17A frigates. But they stil ordered 6 Russian Grigorovitch. The prices are almost the same but they chosed Russian frigate, maybe their is a reason.
For maintaining the Mig-31 and Mig-29 SMT, they can just give this work to Sukhoi or Yak with all the technical data transferted to them. And they ordered 30 Aircraft as of today, not 180. I don't really know if their was a contract signed, the plane is still tested by the air force. The hole thing was communication and marketing. But if they order them, well I agree Mig will be saved.
India wants more the transfert of western technology for their domestical programs than not having just russian stuff. But the fact is that they are not mature to develope their own things and westerns are not going to give them their best technology for low prices. That's what happened with Dassault, they wanted a factory for the rafale, rafales, ToT, meteors ... for very low prices that's why at the end they went for just 36 Rafales. The final contract has nothing to do with what they wanted.
This the same with Grigorovitch frigates. They localy produce their own Shivalik class frigate which are bigger and "improved" Talwar class and have the project 17A frigates. But they stil ordered 6 Russian Grigorovitch. The prices are almost the same but they chosed Russian frigate, maybe their is a reason.
For maintaining the Mig-31 and Mig-29 SMT, they can just give this work to Sukhoi or Yak with all the technical data transferted to them. And they ordered 30 Aircraft as of today, not 180. I don't really know if their was a contract signed, the plane is still tested by the air force. The hole thing was communication and marketing. But if they order them, well I agree Mig will be saved.
Guest- Guest
Russian airforce commanders few times expressed their wish to obtain single engined multirole fighters, however there were none, during second Chechen War they even tried retrieving some MiG-27s and MiG-23s from the storages but they werent...in all that useful shape to say at least even tho they were retired just few years earlier.
Even tho sometimes, not always, buying twin engined fighter is cheaper (very rare cases actually) maintenance is impossible to be cheaper, two turbines, two afterburner chambers... unless you make spares from cheese its not going to be cheaper. Fuel consumption basically has to be higher, depending on engines we compare ALOT higher, oil especially... then you need to buy more spare engines too... two engines are luxury no matter how you put it.
That is why i always liked idea of single engined multirole fighters, eveno tho F-16 isnt really my favourite model, i always prefered Tigershark over it despite its ill fated destiny. Yugoslavian Yu-supersonic project if it ever saw light of the day would have been decent machine, sadly it didnt.
When its about comparing prices, we all here know that prices are differently formed in Russia and West. When you take some of the contracts they signed for aircraft delivery you come to conclusion that price per bort was less than 20 million USD, which is unlikely, but what happens then is that followup contracts for training, maintenance, spares, weapons... follow and pile up the price basically matching prices we see on the West.
Now, Indian tender wasnt going smoothly either, India wanted originally 126 fighters for somewhat below 8 billion which at that moment only F-16 could fit, its highly unrelistic they could get Gripen or EF-2000 in that amount for same money. When they disqualified other competitors due to different reasons (F-16 being political, MiG-35 due to pressure from the airfroce which wasnt happy with their current MiG-29 fleet performance, EF-2000 due to...price?) they were left with Dassault Rafale and French decided that transfer of technology suddenly wasnt all that great idea. Then Indians which desperately need more fighters decided to buy only 3 squadrons as short-term solution and French seeing they are going to lose the cake started piling up the price.
Even tho sometimes, not always, buying twin engined fighter is cheaper (very rare cases actually) maintenance is impossible to be cheaper, two turbines, two afterburner chambers... unless you make spares from cheese its not going to be cheaper. Fuel consumption basically has to be higher, depending on engines we compare ALOT higher, oil especially... then you need to buy more spare engines too... two engines are luxury no matter how you put it.
That is why i always liked idea of single engined multirole fighters, eveno tho F-16 isnt really my favourite model, i always prefered Tigershark over it despite its ill fated destiny. Yugoslavian Yu-supersonic project if it ever saw light of the day would have been decent machine, sadly it didnt.
When its about comparing prices, we all here know that prices are differently formed in Russia and West. When you take some of the contracts they signed for aircraft delivery you come to conclusion that price per bort was less than 20 million USD, which is unlikely, but what happens then is that followup contracts for training, maintenance, spares, weapons... follow and pile up the price basically matching prices we see on the West.
Now, Indian tender wasnt going smoothly either, India wanted originally 126 fighters for somewhat below 8 billion which at that moment only F-16 could fit, its highly unrelistic they could get Gripen or EF-2000 in that amount for same money. When they disqualified other competitors due to different reasons (F-16 being political, MiG-35 due to pressure from the airfroce which wasnt happy with their current MiG-29 fleet performance, EF-2000 due to...price?) they were left with Dassault Rafale and French decided that transfer of technology suddenly wasnt all that great idea. Then Indians which desperately need more fighters decided to buy only 3 squadrons as short-term solution and French seeing they are going to lose the cake started piling up the price.
Isos- Posts : 11301
Points : 11271
Join date : 2015-11-06
Now, Indian tender wasnt going smoothly either, India wanted originally 126 fighters for somewhat below 8 billion which at that moment only F-16 could fit, its highly unrelistic they could get Gripen or EF-2000 in that amount for same money. When they disqualified other competitors due to different reasons (F-16 being political, MiG-35 due to pressure from the airfroce which wasnt happy with their current MiG-29 fleet performance, EF-2000 due to...price?) they were left with Dassault Rafale and French decided that transfer of technology suddenly wasnt all that great idea. Then Indians which desperately need more fighters decided to buy only 3 squadrons as short-term solution and French seeing they are going to lose the cake started piling up the price.
If I'm right, there is two tenders. The first one was won by Dassault but they didn't get what they wanted so it's still open to EF-2000 and Mig-35 which was designed for Inda at first and all the issues from Mig-29 were solved. Most of these issues were service life and parts for engines which were difficult to obtain.
The second one is for a single engine fighter.
You talked about single engines being a requirement for India in the portion of your post I responded to and I was responding to that.
Yes it's a requirement in the second tender. That's why neither Mig neither Typhoon or Rafale are participating. Just F-16 and Grippen can participate.
Guest- Guest
Isos wrote:
Now, Indian tender wasnt going smoothly either, India wanted originally 126 fighters for somewhat below 8 billion which at that moment only F-16 could fit, its highly unrelistic they could get Gripen or EF-2000 in that amount for same money. When they disqualified other competitors due to different reasons (F-16 being political, MiG-35 due to pressure from the airfroce which wasnt happy with their current MiG-29 fleet performance, EF-2000 due to...price?) they were left with Dassault Rafale and French decided that transfer of technology suddenly wasnt all that great idea. Then Indians which desperately need more fighters decided to buy only 3 squadrons as short-term solution and French seeing they are going to lose the cake started piling up the price.
If I'm right, there is two tenders. The first one was won by Dassault but they didn't get what they wanted so it's still open to EF-2000 and Mig-35 which was designed for Inda at first and all the issues from Mig-29 were solved. Most of these issues were service life and parts for engines which were difficult to obtain.
The second one is for a single engine fighter.
Yes, exactly, Indian MRCA tender is done with Dassault Rafale as winner, and we can say that whole project in general failed. They did not get the bort quota they wanted, did not get technology transfer, they paid almost as much they plannned originally for whole order. Plus they placed stone around their neck, since they will most likely end up ordering Rafale-M as their future maritime fighter, in order to try and marginalise the expenses.
Yes, current tender is separate and its limited to only single engined platforms and basically is try number two to partially replace MiG-21/27 asap.
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
Russian company working on a lightweight stealth fighter to replace the Mig-29 and Mig35
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/02/russian-company-working-on-lightweight.html
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/02/russian-company-working-on-lightweight.html
Russia’s RSK-MiG is working on a new lightweight fifth-generation stealth fighter to replace the Mikoyan MiG-29 and MiG-35 Fulcrum series fighters.
Called the Liogkiy Mnogofunktsionalniy Frontovoi Samolyet (LMFS)—or Light Multi-Function Frontal Aircraft in English—United Aircraft Corporation is developing the new aircraft out of its own funds, reports aviation journalist Piotr Butowski in the French-language trade journal Air and Cosmos.
The LMFS will use a canard configuration reminiscent of the now-defunct Mikoyan Project 1.44 design, which was developed in the late 1980s as the Soviet Union’s answer to the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.
The aircraft will likely have an empty weight of roughly 33,000lbs and a maximum takeoff weight of 55,000lbs. The aircraft will be equipped with internal weapons bays and advanced avionics—assuming it ever reaches fruition.
As currently envisioned, the new fighter will be equipped with a pair of the Klimov VK-10M afterburning turbofans—which are advanced derivatives of the MiG-29-series’ RD-33 powerplant—rated at 22,000lb thrust each. That should enable the aircraft to reach speeds of between Mach 1.8 and Mach 2.0 with a range of 2485 miles when configured with external droptanks.
It is possible that Mikoyan may revise the design into a single-engine configuration if the PAK-FA’s next-generation izdeliye 30 engines reach a suitable level of maturity in time. There are few details available about the izdeliye 30 engines, but the new powerplant is expected to deliver 24,054lbs dry thrust and 39,566lbs of afterburning thrust.
|
|
|