Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Mikoyan LMFS

    Share
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  sepheronx on Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:25 am

    Militarov wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Flanky wrote:People do the fact that having lightweight PAK-FA is not a priority does not mean that there is zero interrest from goverment. It just means that they want to finish T-50 and put it into production before focusing on LMFI. By the time this change of focus happens MIG is perfectly capable of funding the research using its own funds. That would significantly shorten the development time and by the time MoD will provide the funds MIG would have finished some part of the research and development efforts. I have read that the goverment indeed plans to have and even export lighter version of 5th gen fighter. So the approach MIG takes is the right one.

    Russia badly lacks light single engined fighter they didnt have one basically since MiG21, cheap single engined fighters are needed for air patrols, training, building pilot hours in air etc, especially great solution if they are unified with bigger twin engine platform and built on same core (radar, engine, controls layout, common parts...). Something of a Tejas class lets say, to cost 20-25mil USD so its available in quantities.

    I am always expecting a cheap single jet engine fighter would be ideal for Russia.  But it appears that Russia has very little love for them and would rather spend a bit more for a dual engined aircraft.  They had singe jet engine aircrafts in service after MiG-21 and that was MiG-23 and 27 which both were also retired same time (roughly).  I imagine this LMFS if ever made, will also be dual engine.  Would have been cool if Russia did ever decided to actually develop the MiG-33 (fabled I know) which ended up as the JF-17.

    Legend says Russians stopped making single engined fighters coz of their bad experience with MiG21 crashes due to engine failures, but hey, engines improved since then i dont see AL-31F M2 for an example being unreliable etc, making some lighter multirole fighter with such engine would be ideal imo, abit bigger than JF-17 or modern RD33 engine anyways to be in JF17 class doesnt really matter. And yeah i am afraid that future LMFS shall be twin engined most likely it seems.

    Well apparently Pakistan and China both praised the RD-93 engines used on the JF-17.  I also would prefer to see a single engine aircraft as a single jet engine will greatly reduce overall costs.  But a major problem I am seeing with smaller aircraft of Russian design, and it is evident on MiG-29/35's, is the powersupply/generator used to power onboard electronics.  I had an argument a while back with an Egyptian on this forums (whom I regret being aggressive towards as he was actually a really good guy), that was saying that the Zhuk-A radars are quite weak.  Issue was that the radar used on the Zhuk-A as an example had a detection range of roughly 160km for 3m^2 targets.  After doing an investigation, the apparent GaAS modules used were rated at most 5W each (these modules are from Istok.  But updated info I found was roughly upwards to 10w each and while the competition from Tikhomirov NIIP apparently has 15W or higher GaAS and working on 30W GaN modules), and that the performance should be around 250km for 3m^2 targets and that the main issue is that the modules are roughly only operating at 3W max and not at their intended max wattage (thus producing reduced performance).  And so there are two theories behind it: either it has issues with proper cooling thus the modules have to be reduced in the amount of power sent to the modules so it does not overheat causing damages, or it is due to a lack of power being drawn, thus generator/psu issues.  How I figured it was a PSU issue is that I figure (just guessing really as I didn't think that Tikhomirov made any modules, and still not entirely sure it is them that is making it or Istok is really the only one making the modules) that both N036 radar used for PAK FA and Zhuk-A were both using same T/R modules and that N036 using 1500 t/r modules was indeed performing in its respective performance rating (400km for fighter sized targets) compared to what the Zhuk-A's intended range of 250km when only operating at 160km with roughly close to 1000 t/r modules.  And thus I figure that the N036 was running at its full capacity in order to see such targets from a distance all due to its powersupply being able to produce upwards to 15KW of power, which is a huge amounts (Su-35S for example produces 20KW).

    If I am correct on my assumptions, then the big challenge for Mikoyan is producing generator/psu and cooling system for the aesa modules.  Since phazotron (whom makes the Zhuk-A) is owned by KRET (a subsiduary of Rostec), then the future holds using Photon's for the T/R modules rather than simply electron flow.  And that there will be massive performance increases.  But one thing to make certain of its true performance, will have to be what I presume is the main problems facing MiG-35.

    Yeah i have been reading about whole AESA developing in Russia mess myself but at the end of the day i dont think powering it up should be much of an issue, if Chinese can power up their J10B/JF17 radars no question about Russians being able to. Power consumption incr. with AESA with 1000+ modules surely can be troubling but they, there are solutions i suppose in better/newer electricity generators, or on other side, reduce amount of modules, after all goal would be cheap multirole fighter, no need for 1500+ modules.

    Russia's AESA development seems to be going quite well, but the whole setup in terms of media information and open information is so clouded that I have absolutely no idea what is what and who makes what. I am aware Istok makes some. Then I am aware that there is another company making them. Then we get tidbit information of radar systems to be used on ships that are using Russian made GaN modules of roughly 30W each, but we get little no details afterwards. Apparently there is evidence that the T/R modules for the N036 are roughly 10 - 15W each, but there is some conflicting info if the Zhuk-A uses 5W or 10W modules. There was apparent issues with cooling the modules which caused issues in terms of performance, but I don't know if they fixed it or not, cause I have only heard rumors that the intended tests for N036 works, so that would mean that they operated in their intended purposes. Two different companies, so possibly two different solutions to the same problem.

    Now development on making GaAS/GaN modules much cheaper currently in works and using Photons rather than electrons for the semiconductors for future (by 2020). So I have no real idea. Not a lot of people do. That guy Jo over at keypub obtains a ridiculous amounts of info on such things and I know Berkut also made mention as well. So he is another good one that would possibly know more.
    avatar
    Flanky

    Posts : 181
    Points : 188
    Join date : 2011-05-02

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Flanky on Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:45 am

    Light fighter is rated for smaller amount of weapons to be carried so it does not need internal weapons bay as big as T-50 would. Differrential thrust of 2 engines might be as easily an asset as it might be a liability. You see from a statistical point of view and reliability 2 engines introduce a higher probability of one of them failing. If such engine were to fail on a 1985 Mig-29 during landing where seconds are crucial, it would cause such unwanted differrential in thrust that the plane would slide off the landing course and crash if the pilot would have been not quick enough to compensate for the loss of thrust of one of the engines. This can be done with automatic regulators today but back then the technology was not there... still it remains one of the most critical maneuvers. One other thing that speaks in favour of single engine is the production cost and time. Today as it was rightly pointed out - the reliability of single engine is very high. Operation from unpaved airstrips are thing of the past. If there is a need to make a forward operating base in a region wothout runway - highways are used. So having 2 engines for a light fighter is costly and the production and testing takes more time. There are countries for which price is a very significant factor - much more significant than for Russia or India. Thats where single engine design would be cheaper and ofcourse the weight of the plane would have to be designed so that the plane would be able to compete with top fighters. Another thing is production time and maintenance costs. Light fighter in terms of production costs and time should be much more expendable vehicle. In the old days Mig-21 was a perfect plane in this sense. Produced in thousands. If the LMFI will go back into the roots from where Mig came... then it would not only have big export potential as it would be cheap, light - i would say that it can have a big licence production potential for countries like Brazil or India as it would be relatively fast to manufacture exaclty because of only single engine.... - the second one which you would still normally use for the same Mig-29 can be used for a differrent unit.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5557
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Militarov on Sun Oct 04, 2015 4:22 pm

    Flanky wrote:Light fighter is rated for smaller amount of weapons to be carried so it does not need internal weapons bay as big as T-50 would. Differrential thrust of 2 engines might be as easily an asset as it might be a liability. You see from a statistical point of view and reliability 2 engines introduce a higher probability of one of them failing. If such engine were to fail on a 1985 Mig-29 during landing where seconds are crucial, it would cause such unwanted differrential in thrust that the plane would slide off the landing course and crash if the pilot would have been not quick enough to compensate for the loss of thrust of one of the engines. This can be done with automatic regulators today but back then the technology was not there... still it remains one of the most critical maneuvers. One other thing that speaks in favour of single engine is the production cost and time. Today as it was rightly pointed out - the reliability of single engine is very high. Operation from unpaved airstrips are thing of the past. If there is a need to make a forward operating base in a region wothout runway - highways are used. So having 2 engines for a light fighter is costly and the production and testing takes more time. There are countries for which price is a very significant factor - much more significant than for Russia or India. Thats where single engine design would be cheaper and ofcourse the weight of the plane would have to be designed so that the plane would be able to compete with top fighters. Another thing is production time and maintenance costs. Light fighter in terms of production costs and time should be much more expendable vehicle. In the old days Mig-21 was a perfect plane in this sense. Produced in thousands. If the LMFI will go back into the roots from where Mig came... then it would not only have big export potential as it would be cheap, light - i would say that it can have a big licence production potential for countries like Brazil or India as it would be relatively fast to manufacture exaclty because of only single engine.... - the second one which you would still normally use for the same Mig-29 can be used for a differrent unit.

    I am big supporter of single engined light fighters, i see the point of Jak 130 having two engines but on real light multirole fighter i see less and less. Russia truly does need something light single engined, Gripen NG equal in terms of size and weight lets say. There are drawbacks, but there are also so many good sides, i simply dont like having everything with two engines.
    avatar
    rtech

    Posts : 21
    Points : 23
    Join date : 2014-12-11

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  rtech on Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:49 pm

    Info stolen from keypub user crow11

    - Mig is working independently on its 5th gen plane
    - it is going to have a mass of 15 tonns (that is twice less then Pakfa)not sure if empty...
    - It is going to be revealed in 2016

    http://oborona.gov.ru/media/video/rusor2015102015

    sorry source is in russian info @ 9 min approximately
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5557
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Militarov on Tue Oct 13, 2015 5:47 am

    rtech wrote:Info stolen from keypub user crow11

    - Mig is working independently on its 5th gen plane
    - it is going to have a mass of 15 tonns (that is twice less then Pakfa)not sure if empty...
    - It is going to be revealed in 2016

    http://oborona.gov.ru/media/video/rusor2015102015

    sorry source is in russian info @ 9 min approximately

    Probably a full size mockup in 2016. i guess, at least thats what i find plausible.
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2048
    Points : 2213
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Cyberspec on Tue Oct 13, 2015 6:27 am

    Interesting news either way....at least we'll have an idea what it looks like
    avatar
    mack8

    Posts : 957
    Points : 1017
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  mack8 on Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:35 pm

    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
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10647
    Points : 11126
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  George1 on Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:20 am



    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10647
    Points : 11126
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  George1 on Mon Feb 13, 2017 2:58 pm

    Posted image and data of the new Russian light fighter LMFS russia russia

    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


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 912
    Points : 910
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Isos on Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:28 pm


    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 : 144
    Points : 150
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  eridan on Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:29 pm

    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.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3201
    Points : 3324
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  kvs on Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:13 pm

    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.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 912
    Points : 910
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Isos on Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:26 pm

    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.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5557
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Militarov on Mon Feb 13, 2017 9:49 pm

    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.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5583
    Points : 5687
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Feb 13, 2017 10:08 pm

    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.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3201
    Points : 3324
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  kvs on Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:27 am

    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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16717
    Points : 17325
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 14, 2017 7:55 am

    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.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 912
    Points : 910
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Isos on Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:46 am

    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.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5557
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Militarov on Wed Feb 15, 2017 12:05 am

    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.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 912
    Points : 910
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Isos on Wed Feb 15, 2017 12:30 am

    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.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5557
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Militarov on Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:12 pm

    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.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 912
    Points : 910
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Isos on Wed Feb 15, 2017 5:34 pm

    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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16717
    Points : 17325
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:58 am

    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?



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 912
    Points : 910
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Isos on Thu Feb 16, 2017 12:36 pm

    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.

    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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16717
    Points : 17325
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:14 am

    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.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:27 pm