5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

Azi wrote: I'm chemist

Chemist, physicist its all about particles isn't it?

Normally microwave guns based on MASER (microwave analogue to LASER) are only huge and consume a lot of power. The beam is focused and it's not dangerous for people who are not standing in the path of the beam. The device itself is of course isolated! In the path of beam you have more or less a lot of problems, depending on the power and wavelength. With today technology you have to built a plane around the MASER, like the A-10 was literally built around the main gun, because for a really powerful engine...maybe a pilot would make the plane too huge and complex!

ok what then is reason to use maser/EW then laser? higher power ? easier to make? less radiation power loss with distance? What about power transferred in impulse? In every case
Laser can cut through missile or fighter can EW gun do this?

Microwaves are between radio waves and infrared light. Many AESA radars are working in the area of microwaves and AESA is a powerful tool for EW. Powerful AESA is no problem for pilots, why should a directed beam created by a isolated pod be a problem?

Best example for a good microwave weapon is Krasukha-4! X-Band radar is official microwave (beginning from 1 GHz). Krasukha-4 working with multiband is soo powerful, that it barbecues the electronic of enemy missile, plane, satellite etc!

Krasukha is good example that it works only with large size of antenna and power generator is huge. Laser pods already are tested. Anyway




after wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon#Microwave_weapons

Plasma weapons
Main article: Plasma weapon
Plasma weapons fire a beam, bolt, or stream of plasma, which is an excited state of matter consisting of atomic electrons & nuclei and free electrons if ionized, or other particles if pinched.

The MARAUDER (Magnetically Accelerated Ring to Achieve Ultra-high Directed-Energy and Radiation) used the Shiva Star project (a high energy capacitor bank which provided the means to test weapons and other devices requiring brief and extremely large amounts of energy) to accelerate a toroid of plasma at a significant percentage of the speed of light.[74]

The Russian Federation is developing plasma weapons.[75]

Project old but look at potential: 10,000kms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER

Specifically, the objective of the program was the acceleration of a toroid of 0.5-2.0 mg plasma to a kinetic energy level on the order of megajoules using a 5-10 MJ coaxial gun de


+++
The plasma projectiles would be shot at a speed expected to be 3000 km/s in 1995 and 10,000 km/s (3% of the speed of light) by 2000. A shot has the energy of 5 pounds of TNT exploding. Doughnut-shaped rings of plasma and balls of lightning exploded with devastating thermal and mechanical effects when hitting their target and produced pulse of electromagnetic radiation that could scramble electronics, the energy would shower the interior of the target with high-energy x-rays that would potentially destroy the electronics inside.[5]

Isos wrote:

VSTOL sucks. Only advantage is that it can take off vertically. And when you look at how to operate them you still need a pretty big carrier, be it helicopter or aircraft carrier. So better put a little bit more money and buy a real carrier with fighters already produced and much better than any vstol. At least you save money by not designing a flying pig similar to yak-38, f-35 or harrier.

Sucks is your opinion you have right to. Has little to do with objective reality tho. F-35 and Yak-38 are/were not fighters but strike fighters or bomber fighter is you prefer. Compare Su-17 to see Yak-38. /u performance is on same level. what abut F-35/Sepcat Jaguar? Jaguar here is much worse.

It is intriguing that you know better about VSTOL then Russian aerospace engineers and top Brass. Perhaps ythey know something you dont, after all?

All other parameter are better for normal fighters.All.

What is normal fighter? you put 2x Al-41/180 kN on VSTOL 11,5 ton fighter and you'll have worse speed that 8ton / F404 - 98kN) J-39 right? oops noo?

Edit: I should have said "flying diamond pig" as the maintenance of such aircraft are just amazingly expensive. F-22 will look really cheap compared to f-35. Dev is already much more expensive than they thought

F-35 has requirements of 3 separate planes. Is fighter bomber to be stealth bomb truck. Has nothing to do with Russian requirements.
Not to mention it will have 25 years newer technology.

Compare Su-17 to see Yak-38.

Yak 38 suck compare to su-17. It could barely carry two bombs with a very limited range while su-17 could carry tactical missile, bombs with longer range.

what abut F-35/Sepcat Jaguar? Jaguar here is much worse

More than 1000 billion to make it better than a retired bomber p really good

For bombinh f-35 will carry external weapons so no stealth and its manoeuvrability is shit. I saw it from my window during Paris intern. Air show and even in clean configuration it takes all thr sky to make a U turn. And I'm serious.

What is normal fighter? you put 2x Al-41/180 kN on VSTOL 11,5 ton fighter and you'll have worse speed that 8ton / F404 - 98kN) J-39 right? oops noo?

Small wings small manoeuvrability. Give it mig-31's engine so it could have more chances to get away.

F-35 has requirements of 3 separate planes. Is fighter bomber to be stealth bomb truck. Has nothing to do with Russian requirements.
Not to mention it will have 25 years newer technology.

Just like any new fighter like F-18SH, Su-3?/57, rafale, new typhoon, grippen, chinese ones, mig-35 ...

But at least they have much better manoeuvrability, longer range, and bigger potebtiel for upgrade with cheaper maintenance.

You just compare new VSTOL to old bombers. F-35 is a fighter bomber just like rafale or su-57. Why don't you compare it to them: less manoeuvrability, less weapons, less range, smaller speed ... stealth is being surpassed by EW and radars...

It is intriguing that you know better about VSTOL then Russian aerospace engineers and top Brass. Perhaps ythey know something you dont, after all? dunno dunno dunno

Nothing to do with me knowing better than russian MoD. I just expose well known facts. Russian MoD dreams about a nuclear carrier full of su-57, they are just limited by money. If vstol was an answer they would have kept the yak-141 project and wouldn't be talking about future nuclear carrier.

I'm afraid to tell you this VSTOL has as much future as the 5th generation mig that they are supposed to do with UAE that they talked about once and nothing happened since then ...

Isos wrote:US bet everything on stealth. That's why f-35 sucks and f-22 is so expensive.

When I say a stealth design, I mean the geometry of the design, a small weapon bay for air to air missiles and use of simple composite materials to achieve low observability, rcs less than 1m2. And keep external weapons for more missile and air to ground weapons.

With stand off weapons you just need to reduce the range at which radars will detect you. That's why radale is so good.

I don't think making the mig 29 stealth, like on the picture shared here, with geometry alignement and a small weapon bay between engine would affect its aerodynamics.

Mig-29 was design without computers. Now they can test different design on computers to make it stealth and manoeuvrable (could even be more than mig29).

Ok. What effect would have this RCS reduction in practical terms? I mean, a good jammer, stand-off weapons, mission planning for optimal approach trajectory / topography cover etc. are probably more relevant than that... see the table below, 1 m2 RCS can be detected really far away. And then, for what frequency? X-band reduction has little to do with what a VHF radar will see, and for a fighter sized aircraft is difficult to do nothing significant in terms of RCS reduction in that band, because many resonant elements exist in the design at the relevant wavelengths.



Would agree to treat certain surfaces with RAM to reduce flare spots on a MiG-29 version, not sure now if this has already been done on MiG-35 but would be reasonable. But changing surfaces on MiG-29 for achieving significant RCS reduction would indeed affect aerodynamics and internal distribution of elements...would be a good share of the effort of making a new plane indeed. If you add weapons bays, significant weight effects are to be expected too, plus the necessary launching tests for all the relevant weapons... quite an effort. Would make sense IMHO more for drag reduction that for RCS BTW, given you are keeping an eye on costs and hence are not going to achieve very significant RCS reductions in the end (as a rule of thumb, two orders of magnitude of RCS reduction come from shaping, another two from materials from what I have read for VLO designs). Composites BTW, if you refer mainly to carbon fibre, are conductive so not really different to metal, unless you are mixing RAM into them. So not directly helping RCS reduction per se.

For a new design, signature management can be considered from the very beginning, as well as weapons bays both for RCS and drag reasons. This would allow to minimize the impact in performance, very much as masterfully done in PAK-FA IMHO. So, reducing X-band return in certain important directions can bring tactical advantages or negate those of your rivals when operating low RCS planes. But it doesn't make sense to go crazy on stealth and loose performance if modern IADs can nevertheless see you, and much less if in some years ROFAR and others reduce your stealth to nothing...

It would be very cool nevertheless a MiG-29 based single engine fighter with some LO design considerations...

Gunship wrote:Of course   I did. Finally you've  admitted VSTOL can fly and well  cheers  cheers  cheers  cheers

Well, I did not include STOVL in my answer, I thought you were referring to real fighters not crippled ones you know

Have an idea (out of my sense of responsibility mainly), I make the design of a decent proposal and you sell it to Vlad ok? What a team we could be!

Gunship wrote:Im afraid Russia doesnt bet on MiG-35

Well, don't be afraid, but this is what they are saying. Is it to entice export customers or are they really meaning it? I thought it was rather the first, but if they know something more than us about ROFAR or quantum radar and the designs are as advanced as it seems, I would also not bother with a LO design at the time being. Why? Because your main concern with a light fighter is that it is cheap enough for you to buy it IN NUMBERS. If you start messing around with VLO design you pretty much ruin that, so better take a proven design and implement on it the improvements that can be realized with tried and tested technology today for reasonable prices. For instance, avionics, better engines, bigger fuel tanks, more weapons... pretty much the description of the MiG-35.

Not that I like that much the two engine design of the MiG-29 but I reckon designing a new model would be very expensive, and the market is maybe not being realistic when requesting "VLO" 5G light fighters... probably most countries cannot afford them to start with!

Isos wrote:I'm afraid to tell you this VSTOL has as much future as the 5th generation mig that they are supposed to do with UAE that they talked about once and nothing happened since then ...

Hahaha, you may be right there! But lets give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they come up with something sensible, who knows?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Azi wrote:  I'm chemist  

ok what then is reason to use maser/EW then laser? higher power ? easier to make? less radiation power loss with distance? What about power transferred in impulse? In every case
Laser can cut through missile or fighter can EW gun do this?

Microwaves can induce eddy currents in metal objects. That's why metal objects likes forks produce in microwave oven sparks. For an electric circiut an extra amount of current can be the dead, electric components will simply melt or be damaged.

MASER are creating a sharp beam of microwaves, similiar to a LASER. But there are other options to create powerful and focused beams of microwaves, Krasukha-4 is definitely not a MASER

LASER-beam is consisting of light more or less visible sometimes, "light" means the "L" in LASER (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation). Light can't induce current in metal, but can of course melt objects if the power is high enough.

Microwave weapons and LASER are both defined above power! More power ---> BETTER! But this a problem for power generation and LASER and microwave weapons are general BIG objects. There have been some tests with a airborne LASER in the US and A, but the platform was not a sexy F-15 or F-22 it was a Boeing 747-400F .

Azi wrote:Microwaves can induce eddy currents in metal objects. That's why metal objects likes forks produce in microwave oven sparks. For an electric circiut an extra amount of current can be the dead, electric components will simply melt or be damaged.

so actually in non metal object or behind Faraday's cage you cannot do much?

Microwave weapons and LASER are both defined above power! More power ---> BETTER! But this a problem for power generation and LASER and microwave weapons are general BIG objects. There have been some tests with a airborne LASER in the US and A, but the platform was not a sexy F-15 or F-22 it was a Boeing 747-400F .

Hmm USAF had been testing laser pod with 50kW laser on F-15 this year.. They want to have 100kW. With thousands of kWs at jet engines power, I dotn think it would have problems with couple hundred kW.

As for maser- perhaps need to energy in short time en explosive magnetic flux gen could be used?then indeed explosion might tbe dangerous.


BTW In wiki there is a quite form US military saying that with current AESA radars turned into Microwave weapons range to damage missile is max 1000m, destroy ~100m. He said destroy...

LMFS wrote: Have an idea (out of my sense of responsibility mainly), I make the design of a decent proposal and you sell it to Vlad ok? What a team we could be!

but I  already did!       and Uncle  Vova approved VSTOL. Now you jst have make a design      

Not that I like that much the two engine design of the MiG-29 but I reckon designing a new model would be very expensive, and the market is maybe not being realistic when requesting "VLO" 5G light fighters... probably most countries cannot afford them to start with!

but you're right here. That's why MiG-35 is going to be proposed for export.  I dont think Russia needs a balst of many old design fighters, which concept is in 80s. With designing a new fighter there is yet another factor: After PAK-FA gets to its end. Only MiG-41 is the only programme with 6gen fighter. You need toget new skills esearch new tech. This is IMHO one of reasons for VSTOL.

Isos wrote:I'm afraid to tell you this VSTOL has as much future as the 5th generation mig that they are supposed to do with UAE that they talked about once and nothing happened since then ...

Hahaha, you may be right there! But lets give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they come up with something sensible, who knows?

    you both are sooo sweet.  

And now back to reality:  UAE "fighter" was only press speculation, nothing about real contract. Like Saudis are in talks to procure S-400.  VSTOL is officially approved program . Ordered by Supreme Commander. Borisov added that money SAP are allocated. BTW I dotn think it will be 5th gen. More likely 6th gen (i.e. new gen engines, built in DEW, and inherent drone mode)

Isos wrote:

What is normal fighter? you put 2x Al-41/180 kN on VSTOL 11,5 ton fighter and you'll have worse speed that 8ton / F404 - 98kN) J-39 right? oops noo?

Small wings small manoeuvrability. Give it mig-31's engine so it could have more chances to get away.

who told you small wings? ! MiG-31's Soloviev engines had max thrust 152Kn , AL-41 has 180kN.

F-35 has requirements of 3 separate planes. Is fighter bomber to be stealth bomb truck. Has nothing to do with Russian requirements.
Not to mention it will have 25 years newer technology.

Just like any new fighter like F-18SH, Su-3?/57, rafale, new typhoon, grippen, chinese ones, mig-35 ...

ha ha none above. F-18 was designed deck fighter. Not land one nor VSTOL. None of remaining was designed as deck only as land version. Amd none as VSTOL.
Only Su-57 is designed as stealth. And STOL

F-35 is a fighter bomber just like rafale or su-57. Why don't you compare it to them: less manoeuvrability, less weapons, less range, smaller speed ... stealth is being surpassed by EW and radars...

first Su-57 and Rafale ar 2 engines multi role fighters not 1 engine bomber fighters. But since you insist:

payload Rafale =9500kg, F-35 10,000kgs
Ceiling Rafale = 15250m, F-35 - 15250

oh yes Rafale is better but not in this case



We haven't seen any real VSTOL fighter yet. Yak-141 was promising development new tech, It's final update versions would be comparable with MiG-29K . ak speed was actually 100km/h less then Rafale or F-18 but could start in 70-80m in STOL mode.

MiG-29K (after wiki)
payload..................................4500kg
range.....................................2000km


Yak (safer Gordon Tefim)
payload..................................4200kg
range.....................................2400km



This was proposed in beginning 990s. Now we talk about 2020s technology,

Nothing to do with me knowing better than russian MoD. I just expose well known facts. Russian MoD dreams about a nuclear carrier full of su-57, they are just limited by money. If vstol was an answer they would have kept the yak-141 project and wouldn't be talking about future nuclear carrier.

I'm afraid to tell you this VSTOL has as much future as the 5th generation mig that they are supposed to do with UAE that they talked about once and nothing happened since then ...

The only know fact here iss: VSTOL approved program. Navy can dream about anything. Supreme Commander made his choice: VSTOL next gen fighter. IMHO . New tech can be developed here. It can be used on much smaller ships. With 40 bln $ for10 years for navy that makes difference.

The rest is only speculations.

Serious question. When are we gonna see that first prototype built/pic? Out of the loop with deadlines for this...

We wont. Mikoyan is a dead company. No one wants their shitty jets anymore as you can get infinately superior Sukhois for the same amount of money.

Ok. What effect would have this RCS reduction in practical terms? I mean, a good jammer, stand-off weapons, mission planning for optimal approach trajectory / topography cover etc. are probably more relevant than that... see the table below, 1 m2 RCS can be detected really far away. And then, for what frequency? X-band reduction has little to do with what a VHF radar will see, and for a fighter sized aircraft is difficult to do nothing significant in terms of RCS reduction in that band, because many resonant elements exist in the design at the relevant wavelengths.

VHF can't target. From russian point of view stealth isn't needed to be "invisible" but reduce range of engagement so they could do their job easier and go for dogfights easier since fighter's x band radars and missike's radars are affected by stealth of the target. Add an ECM pod and you are sur to get into dogfights everytime.

who told you small wings? dunno dunno dunno ! MiG-31's Soloviev engines had max thrust 152Kn , AL-41 has 180kN.4

F-35 and yak-141/38 have small wings. I assume its a choice for all vstol. I meant to give it speed of mig-31 since it would have shit manoeuvrability with small wings.

ha ha none above. F-18 was designed deck fighter. Not land one nor VSTOL. None of remaining was designed as deck only as land version. Amd none as VSTOL.
Only Su-57 is designed as stealth. And STOL lol1 lol1 lol1

They are all multorole. Fighter or fighter bomber doesn't exist anymore. Carrier versions would only differs with more powerfull engines and arresting thing that I forgot the english name.

first Su-57 and Rafale ar 2 engines multi role fighters not 1 engine bomber fighters. But since you insist:

payload Rafale =9500kg, F-35 10,000kgs
Ceiling Rafale = 15250m, F-35 - 15250

oh yes Rafale is better but not in this case lol! lol! lol!

And who cares about if they are in same class. You have those planes in the air they will intercept each other during a war and they won't agree not to fight because they are not in the same class.

Rafale is from the 80s f-35 is from 2020. French can do a far better fighter now specially that everyone knows rafale's engine is underpowered.

According to wiki f-35 payload is 8100kg fir A version. Rafale can carry 1,5 times its weight in payload.

In terms if range loads an f-35 at max and launch it in Vertical mode. The range will be pathetic compare to a rafale launched by catapult.

Yak (safer Gordon Tefim)
payload..................................4200kg
range.....................................2400km

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141#/media/File%3AВарианты_подвески_вооружения_Як-141.png

You and gordon are smoking. Clearly.

The only know fact here iss: VSTOL approved program. Navy can dream about anything. Supreme Commander made his choice: VSTOL next gen fighter. IMHO . New tech can be developed here. It can be used on much smaller ships. With 40 bln $ for10 years for navy that makes difference.

The rest is only speculations.

Those ships don't exist. Even if they do they can't replace a real carrier. It is just another proof that they can build carrier and look at other possibilities and will do the same mistake as soviet navy and its yak-38/kiev class combo.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:but I  already did!       and Uncle  Vova approved VSTOL. Now you jst have make a design      

Then I will make sure to leave you in a good position in front of the Supreme Commander...

but you're right here. That's why MiG-35 is going to be proposed for export.  I dont think Russia needs a balst of many old design fighters, which concept is in 80s. With designing a new fighter there is yet another factor: After PAK-FA gets to its end. Only MiG-41 is the only programme with 6gen fighter. You need toget new skills esearch new tech. This is IMHO one of reasons for VSTOL.

We'll talk in couple years. By now RuAF has started ordering, timidly and leaving to think it is not really going to fill combat squadrons with MiG-35... but they keep repeating they will do and that the plane is the future. Maybe they are lying, maybe not and they were waiting for Zhuk-A as reported in the corresponding thread. We will see, with a little patience. And if RuAF orders, export customers will follow. Plane is quite ok and the price very good.

And now back to reality:  UAE "fighter" was only press speculation, nothing about real contract. Like Saudis are in talks to procure S-400.  VSTOL is officially approved program . Ordered by Supreme Commander. Borisov added that money SAP are allocated. BTW I dotn think it will be 5th gen. More likely 6th gen (i.e. new gen engines, built in DEW, and inherent drone mode)

Yes yes Supreme Commander... much to be done still

payload Rafale =9500kg, F-35 10,000kgs
Ceiling Rafale = 15250m, F-35 - 15250

oh yes Rafale is better but not in this case lol! lol! lol!

Will you for once stop making up data? 10 tones ordnance the F-35???

Isos wrote:VHF can't target. From russian point of view stealth isn't needed to be "invisible" but reduce range of engagement so they could do their job easier and go for dogfights easier since fighter's x band radars and missike's radars are affected by stealth of the target. Add an ECM pod and you are sur to get into dogfights everytime.

Jamming is not a good idea to remain undetected in a complex environment but can help avoiding being targeted. And ARH missiles can go to the sector specified by VHF radar, or powerful engagement radars can be pointed to a precise location and do the rest. Do not see this impossibility of targeting stealth planes once VHF radars have removed surprise element. BTW you have PCL, OTH and many other ways of knowing the plane is there and also many others to get targeting data. Dogfight is too risky, I doubt Russians want to merge everytime if they have BVR tools like the R-37, MRAAM with IR seekers... or long range SAMs.

ATLASCUB wrote:Serious question. When are we gonna see that first prototype built/pic? Out of the loop with deadlines for this...

Nobody seems to know even if there is preliminary work undergoing...

Jamming is not a good idea to remain undetected in a complex environment but can help avoiding being targeted. And ARH missiles can go to the sector specified by VHF radar, or powerful engagement radars can be pointed to. ....... R-37, MRAAM with IR seekers... or long range SAMs.

Yes but still a low observable design, without being expensive as f-22's, would help counter bvr missiles. Short jamming to cut the lock on is really good. Constant jamming against ground radar could be triangulated and targeted. Not the same.

The OTH radar can see you and allow launch of ARH missile but then a low rcs of less than 1 m2 and a good jamming + chaffs will make its Pk fall to almost 0%. Mig 35 is still above 1 or 2 m2 when loaded with weapons. That's still not good for a fighter than enters production in 2020.

They could have cleaned the design a little bit. It's not that hard.

Mig-35 is a product for export first. A better stealth design would have give him precious advantage over other competitors in many countries. Most of asian countries wants a fighter for air defence and antiship mission. Ground attack isn't really needed when it comes to defend against chinese navy or US navy.

Russia will go only with sukhoi and mig-41 as interceptor. Mig company will be dead if they don't find more customers quickly and the mig-35 isn't that much advanced when you look what are other options.

What I'm pointing out is that they started the project in 2006 and had 12 years to make something better than just keeping a cleaner mig-29 design. This cleaner design won't make it low observable against modern radars. They achieved to reduce the rcs but just like other rafale, typhoon or f-18, when you add the weapons it makes it no more low observable but at the level of older 4th generation fighters while radars have tramendously improved.

They should have tried to give it a new design but keeping the mig-29 agility and keeping it cheap by puting inside what we have today in the current mig-35 and nothing more like all those drone data links or whatever you find in f-35.


For russia current mig-35 is good because no one will try to attack them in a big war so they can use it anywhere they want. But when you are a country that can potentialy be at war you want the best. A little bit bigger stealth mig-35 with aesa radar and a weapon bay with two or three missiles with the 8 external hardpoints would have won against rafale for sure.

[quote="LMFS"]

Will you for once stop making up data? 10 tones ordnance the F-35???

That request you need to direct not to me but Ms. Carolyn Nelson from Lockheed Martin

MEDIA CONTACT INFORMATION
Carolyn Nelson
682-215-9699
carolyn.nelson@lmco.com

https://www.f35.com/contact



or just read LM site with understanding?
https://www.f35.com/about/carrytheload/weaponry

We'll talk in couple years. By now RuAF has started ordering, timidly and leaving to think it is not really going to fill combat squadrons with MiG-35... but they keep repeating they will do and that the plane is the future. Maybe they are lying, maybe not and they were waiting for Zhuk-A as reported in the corresponding thread. We will see, with a little patience. And if RuAF orders, export customers will follow. Plane is quite ok and the price very good.

Of course they talk like this so other countries will more likely buy it! Imagine IAF which is flying MiG-21 still. Or Iran with SU-17. This is almost 2 generations ahead. But massive procurement for RuAF is unlikely to me. Price fly off and maintenance is very moderate. But with limited resources Russians would do better investing in future than spending billions on
decent yet legacy design.

BTW I dotn think it will be 5th gen. More likely 6th gen (i.e. new gen engines, built in DEW, and inherent drone mode)

much to be done still /quote]

True. Perspective, breakthrough projects need time and money.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:That request you need to direct not to me but Ms. Carolyn Nelson from Lockheed Martin      

MEDIA CONTACT INFORMATION
Carolyn Nelson
682-215-9699
carolyn.nelson@lmco.com

https://www.f35.com/contact



or just read LM site with understanding?      
https://www.f35.com/about/carrytheload/weaponry

Congratulations, you brought to the forum the mythical "Beast Mode" ... which does not even exist.In fact, if you take the weights of the ordnance stated, it results in barely 2300 kg in A2A mode and 6500 kg in A2G. So apart from claiming inexistent configurations, these propagandists don't even know how to sum. And you have the nerve to bring it here despite the overabundant information on the F-35s specs like the official technical data for instance:

https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/documents/FG17-18980_013_F-35.comFastFacts10-18.pdf

Of course they talk like this so other countries will more likely buy it!  Imagine  IAF which is flying MiG-21 still. Or Iran with SU-17.  This is almost 2 generations ahead.  But massive procurement for RuAF is unlikely to me. Price fly off and maintenance is very moderate.   But with limited resources Russians would do better investing in future than spending billions on
decent yet legacy design.

It is the exact opposite actually, and Su-30, 34 and 35 prove it.

Isos wrote:F-35 and yak-141/38 have small wings. I assume its a choice for all vstol.

same as here: Rafale have canards and TVC thus I assume that is a choice for all fighters. BTW TVC areinherited feature of any VSTOL.

BTW That is described as a  final design of Yak-41M VSTOL (page 121 boo i refer below). Yeah tiny wings like in Rafale?      

Carrier versions would only differs with more powerfull engines and arresting thing that I forgot the english name.

it differs with bigger weight , strengthen of frame, arresting gear and anti corrosion cver. How many navalized "land"  fighters did you see? 30 Rafales and 40 MiGs+ 20 Su? 1800 F-18 an dlik e500 F-18 SH are specifically designed for carriers. Of course with no apparent reason?        

And who cares about if they are in same class. You have those planes in the air they will intercept each other during a war and they won't agree not to fight because they are not in the same class.

Thank you for agreeing with me      

Rafale is from the 80s f-35 is from 2020.

No it's not, just development took so long      

F-35 development started in 1992 with the origins of the Joint Strike Fighter program and is to culminate in full production in 2018.[23] The X-35 first flew on 24 October 2000 and the F-35A on 15 December 2006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Design

French can do a far better fighter now specially that everyone knows rafale's engine is underpowered.
According to wiki f-35 payload is 8100kg fir A version. Rafale can carry 1,5 times its weight in payload.

let me quote you, who cares if under powered or has 1,5 payload/weight? or not. Result counts.

wiki says? OK then Lockheed Martin lies      
https://www.f35.com/about/carrytheload/weaponry

In terms if range loads an f-35 at max and launch it in Vertical mode. The range will be pathetic compare to a rafale launched by catapult.

And how does it relate to new Russian fighter requirements?  BTW Rafale is from 80s, F-35 200s and Russian will be 2025s but you already know its characteristics?

Yak (safer Gordon Tefim)
payload..................................4200kg
range.....................................2400km

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141#/media/File%3AВарианты_подвески_вооружения_Як-141.png

You and gordon are smoking. Clearly.

A) Yefim Gordon is so far best and widely quoted author about Russian Yak fighters. And generally about Russian Soviet aviation. You got better source feel free.      
I was quoting his book:Yakovlev Yak-36, Yak-38 & Yak-41: The Soviet "jump Jets" Book by E. Gordon


B) Was I talking about Yak41? (141), I didn even mention Yak-41M, I was referring to new proposal of Yak in 90s.

Actually this looks very much like a pic of  mockup  from my book page 122. Section: Next generation VTOL aircraft (project)

Those ships don't exist. Even if they do they can't replace a real carrier. It is just another proof that they can build carrier and look at other possibilities and will do the same mistake as soviet navy and its yak-38/kiev class combo.

They do exist. De Gaulle is one of them.       She has marines transport ability, nuclear power plant +30 fighters max. Only catapult because of poor Rafale start qualities lo power engines.

LMFS wrote:
So apart from claiming inexistent configurations, these propagandists don't even know how to sum. And you have the nerve to bring it here despite the overabundant information on the F-35s specs like the official technical data for instance:

its LM problem  not mine        Same with Su-33's magical payload which turned out to be 3300kg in A2A



[quote  ] But with limited resources Russians would do better investing in future than spending billions on decent yet legacy design.
[/quote]
It is the exact opposite actually, and Su-30, 34 and 35 prove it.

[/quote]
OK the you have Sukhois and you ant to spend billions of procurement of MiG-35? It will be a 50years concept in 2030s. You have to decide MiG-35 or new fighters with 2030s tech.

[quote="GunshipDemocracy"]

LMFS wrote:its LM problem  not mine        Same with Su-33's magical payload which turned out to be 3300kg in A2A

Well in fact it is our problem if you knowingly flood the forum with false data
Once thing is weight of a certain weapon loadout (i.e. Su-33 A2A), other is the maximum carrying capacity, which in this case contradicts the official technical data.

OK  the you have Sukhois and you ant to spend billions of procurement of MiG-35?  It will be a 50years concept in 2030s.

Yes, exactly. If the Sukhois are <30 mill per unit then MiG-35 should be cheaper or at least not more expensive. Fighters are needed in RuAf and with one billion you may buy how many, 40? They are very cheap

You have to decide MiG-35 or new fighters with 2030s tech.

We are in 2018 not in 2030 remember? MiG-35 will apparently include first AESA radar on a Russian fighter, modernized engines and up to date avionics, so many of those technologies you are talking about will be included, only in a cheaper, more efficient way. Don't know your experience, but developing and testing something moderately complex is extremely effort intensive and time consuming, so imagine a fighter aircraft. If they can use the platform and update it then they are saving, massively. If the threats were more serious they should invest more but given the status and outlook of Western military aviation and Russia's defensive stance I don't think they need more. Especially when Su-57 is starting being inducted in the air force as a force multiplier that would protect MiG-35.

Except for there are more AESA radars on Su-57 than on MiG-35.

So no, it isn't first Russian fighter with AESA. Its a joke how the MiG-35 has become.

miketheterrible wrote:Except for there are more AESA radars on Su-57 than on MiG-35.

So no, it isn't first Russian fighter with AESA.  Its a joke how the MiG-35 has become.

???
How so?
As far as i can see the Mig-35 is simply a full suite upgrade from the Mig-29M, it's only downsides are flight range and Smaller Radar, which are both to expected for a smaller aircraft.

AlfaT8 wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Except for there are more AESA radars on Su-57 than on MiG-35.

So no, it isn't first Russian fighter with AESA.  Its a joke how the MiG-35 has become.

???
How so?
As far as i can see the Mig-35 is simply a full suite upgrade from the Mig-29M, it's only downsides are flight range and Smaller Radar, which are both to expected for a smaller aircraft.

But that is the main issue.

Its small, and for Russia's airspace, it isn't necessary. They need the ability to fly fast and far. Plus, we have no idea what it is using for a radar. And what we do know of the tested radar, even at its greatest capabilities, it still doesn't compete against the Bars-R radar of Su-30SM.

Since Su-30SM and Su-35 are in full production. They are more capable. And their price tag is close to the MiG-35. That is from information that we know.

If, lets say they were able to get an APU were they can really push the radar's capability were it has longer detection range. If they managed to extend the range as well, that would be even greater.

Anyway, I feel that their capabilities overlap each other. If they managed to come up with a much cheaper jet much like JF-17, J-10, F-16, etc but capable so that it interests nations who may not be able to afford the other jets, but want capabilities? Then awesome. But that just wasn't the MiG-35.

miketheterrible wrote:But that is the main issue.

Its small, and for Russia's airspace, it isn't necessary.  They need the ability to fly fast and far.  Plus, we have no idea what it is using for a radar.  And what we do know of the tested radar, even at its greatest capabilities, it still doesn't compete against the Bars-R radar of Su-30SM.

Since Su-30SM and Su-35 are in full production.  They are more capable.  And their price tag is close to the MiG-35.  That is from information that we know.

If, lets say they were able to get an APU were they can really push the radar's capability were it has longer detection range.  If they managed to extend the range as well, that would be even greater.

Anyway, I feel that their capabilities overlap each other.  If they managed to come up with a much cheaper jet much like JF-17, J-10, F-16, etc but capable so that it interests nations who may not be able to afford the other jets, but want capabilities?  Then awesome.  But that just wasn't the MiG-35.

You are right that Su-57 is also being procured already, so both will be almost simultaneously introducing AESAs to RuAF.

As Garry has argued, there are places where distances are not so big and a smaller, cheaper fighter with smaller range and payload makes sense, given it will be covered by air superiority fighters and the rest of IAD assets. Besides, MiG-35 has notably increased fuel tank capacity to the point it makes 2000 km on internal fuel, which is quite acceptable IMHO for a tactical fighter.

Yes, it would be better to have a smaller, single engine very cheap fighter instead a medium sized one which overlaps in some senses with the Sukhois but still is worse and not that much cheaper. But the reality is that they don't have that ideal plane to work with but the MiG-29, so clearly the best they can do is to go for the MiG-35

Well, besides Kaliningrad, Kuril Islands and Russian foreign bases (Syria and Armenia) OK, fine.

But they really need to emphasise and market its systems and capabilities. And reduce cost.