Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Mikoyan LMFS

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4149
    Points : 4139
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Isos on Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:01 pm

    Back to the topic, how many time would mig need to design a fighter that takes everything from the mig-35 but with a stealth design and a small weapon bay for 2 or 3 r-77 and stealthier hardpoints for external missiles that would be semi-stealth, like those on mig-31 for r-33 that keeps half of the missile "inside" the plane. Or at least keep the missile closer to the wing istead of leting it 30-40 cm bellow the plane with actual missile pods. R-73 could be kept externally as they are not huge so no huge rcs and future short range missile will be much cleaner than r-73.


    I can't understand them. They presented mig-35 in 2006 and in 2018 they have something similar to a mig 29 in terms of external design. They clearly don't work enough while they could have done a realy nice and cheap stealth plane. And mig-29 is not that hard to be transformed into a stealth design since it is a really simple design. For export it is important to work on every aspects m. "Reducing" rcs from mig-29 isn't enough.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS on Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:35 pm

    Isos wrote:Back to the topic, how many time would mig need to design a fighter that takes everything from the mig-35 but with a stealth design and a small weapon bay for 2 or 3 r-77 and stealthier hardpoints for external missiles that would be semi-stealth, like those on mig-31 for r-33 that keeps half of the missile "inside" the plane. Or at least keep the missile closer to the wing istead of leting it 30-40 cm bellow the plane with actual missile pods. R-73 could be kept externally as they are not huge so no huge rcs and future short range missile will be much cleaner than r-73.


    I can't understand them. They presented mig-35 in 2006 and in 2018 they have something similar to a mig 29 in terms of external design. They clearly don't work enough while they could have done a realy nice and cheap stealth plane. And mig-29 is not that hard to be transformed into a stealth design since it is a really simple design. For export it is important to work on every aspects m. "Reducing" rcs from mig-29 isn't enough.
    For the time being Russia apparently bets on the MiG-35. A light fighter must be as economical as possible and stealth is exactly the opposite. If you add that even the West band is loosing faith in it, I would agree that extracting the most from the very capable 4G airframes with modern avionics without caring too much for stealth is the most reasonable solution. If and when a new fighter is to be developed I wouldn't base it on the MiG-29 but would make it smaller, lighter and more advanced aerodynamically.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4149
    Points : 4139
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Isos on Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:01 pm

    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).
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 266
    Points : 262
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Azi on Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:27 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:@Azi  were you a physicist or something right?   welcome  welcome  welcome

    perhaps you could tell me why KRET guy said for Tass that microvave guns can be used only by drones (more precise fighters in drone mode)  because it is dangerous for pilots?
    I'm chemist Cool

    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! dunno
    There are microwave weapons not based on MASER technology.

    Maybe it's easier to built a drone for a microwave weapon, than to built a microwave weapon pod for a real fighter!? dunno

    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!
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 78
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:58 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:and now please tell me
    Can one make a maneuverable fighter with good flight characteristics ?
    The answer is yes, did you need my help for that?

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




    @LMFS && ISOS

    Im afraid Russia doesnt bet on MiG-35. There is good fighter, ith 30-40% cheaper flyaway cost. Yet this is still a legacy design. There is waste of money to invest in this taking not account limited resources. Especially that new designs are on the move. In 2030s 80s designs will start to be massively retired (F-18, Eurfighter, Rafale)

    IMHO MiG-35 is just a stopgap if VSTOL (if this will be light) is delayed. Perhaps those 6 procured is just to test and help in export contracts? 2021 when Iran can start buying fighters is less than 2 years ahead... Perhaps also India?




    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:40 am; edited 1 time in total
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4149
    Points : 4139
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Isos on Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:49 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:and now please tell me
    Can one make a maneuverable fighter with good flight characteristics ?
    The answer is yes, did you need my help for that?

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


    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.

    All other parameter are better for normal fighters.All.

    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
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 78
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:07 am

    Azi wrote: I'm chemist Cool

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


    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! dunno

    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]




    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 78
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:29 am

    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. Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

    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





    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.

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4149
    Points : 4139
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Isos on Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:04 am

    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 Twisted Evil really good Very Happy

    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 ...
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS on Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:12 am

    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.

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Rus-VHF-band-Radar-Params-2008

    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... Razz

    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 lol1 lol1

    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! affraid

    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?


    Last edited by LMFS on Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:21 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 266
    Points : 262
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Azi on Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:12 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Azi wrote:  I'm chemist Cool  
    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 Laughing .
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 78
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:47 am

    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 Laughing .

    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...
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 78
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:09 am

    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! affraid

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





    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?

    lol!  lol!  lol! 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)
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 78
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:15 am

    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? dunno dunno dunno ! 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 lol1 lol1 lol1





    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 lol! lol! lol!



    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.



    avatar
    ATLASCUB

    Posts : 605
    Points : 615
    Join date : 2017-02-13

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  ATLASCUB on Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:46 am

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

    Posts : 3936
    Points : 3916
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  miketheterrible on Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:50 am

    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.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4149
    Points : 4139
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Isos on Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:57 am

    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.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS on Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:31 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:but I  already did!   yes sir  yes sir  yes sir and Uncle  Vova approved VSTOL. Now you jst have make a design   thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup
    Then I will make sure to leave you in a good position in front of the Supreme Commander... Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

    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 lol1

    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...
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4149
    Points : 4139
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Isos on Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:58 pm

    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.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22633
    Points : 23177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB on Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:55 pm

    There is nothing wrong with the MiG-29s design... aerodynamics have not changed much and they had pretty optimal aerodynamics for their time.

    The only real way to improve the aircraft would be to update all the electronics and engines and radar and refine the design a little bit to reduce its RCS as much as practical and to reduce weight with lighter more modern materials... and that is what a MiG-35 is.

    The number of Su-35s they are making suggests there is a requirement for non stealthy fighters, because nonstealthy fighters have a couple of features that remain useful... for instance the capacity to carry rather more weapons and weapons of unusual size or shape because they are externally carried. Sure stealth aircraft can also carry weapons externally, but it is like using a Rolls Royce to plow a field... a tractor does a much better job.

    Not every mission requires a 3,000km flight range, nor a large heavy fighter like the Flanker, so a smaller and lighter fighter makes sense.

    I have told you several times that the logic that a Flanker with twice the flight range and the same speed and double the weapon capacity of the Fulcrum does not mean you get the same coverage with half the number of Flankers.

    Two Fulcrums can operate together and support each other and are much more effective than a single flanker, but can also chase down two different targets within their area of coverage which a single Flanker cannot do.

    This means that over big empty spaces like Siberia where there are not that many airfields then a Flanker does make sense, but in densely populated western europe with lots of airfields having more Fulcrums also makes sense because while you need more aircraft you get better coverage too.

    It is also just basic common sense... if you fix things around the house do you only need the biggest screwdrivers and the biggest spanners?
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4149
    Points : 4139
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Isos on Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:18 pm

    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.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 78
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:28 am

    [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 yes sir yes sir yes sir

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

    https://www.f35.com/contact



    or just read LM site with understanding? dunno dunno dunno
    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 lol1 /quote]

    True. Perspective, breakthrough projects need time and money. unshaven unshaven unshaven



    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS on Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:23 am

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

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

    https://www.f35.com/contact



    or just read LM site with understanding?  dunno  dunno  dunno
    https://www.f35.com/about/carrytheload/weaponry
    Congratulations, you brought to the forum the mythical "Beast Mode" lol1 lol1 ... 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.


    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 78
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:31 am

    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?  lol1  lol1  lol1

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 VFv6FeI




    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?  dunno  dunno  dunno  




    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  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup





    Rafale is from the 80s f-35 is from 2020.
    No it's not, just development took so long  lol1  lol1  lol1

    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  affraid  affraid  affraid
    https://www.f35.com/about/carrytheload/weaponry

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Ctl-infog-final






    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?

    respekt respekt respekt






    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.  Suspect  Suspect  Suspect
    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)

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Yakovlev_MFI_2






    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.  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup She has marines transport ability, nuclear power plant +30 fighters max. Only catapult because of poor Rafale start qualities lo power engines.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 78
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:52 am

    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   lol1  lol1  lol1  Same with Su-33's magical payload which turned out to be 3300kg in A2A thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup



    [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.

    Sponsored content

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 12 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 14, 2019 3:48 am