Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Mikoyan LMFS

    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS on Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:11 pm

    [quote="GunshipDemocracy"]
    LMFS wrote: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
    Well in fact it is our problem if you knowingly flood the forum with false data What a Face
    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.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 3902
    Points : 3882
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:17 pm

    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.
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1809
    Points : 1804
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:42 pm

    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.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 3902
    Points : 3882
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:51 pm

    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.
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS on Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:35 pm

    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
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 3902
    Points : 3882
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:40 pm

    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.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:15 am

    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

    Well, you have always limited money supply. SO either you spend on procurement stuff that's not really needed or invest in future tech. RuAF is close new fighters procurement saturation, why to add another logistic chain, production line and jut second fighters with much overlapping abilities?  OAK has problem now with enough Sukhois' orders to keep factories running.

    MiG wont be jobless at all: Skat + MiG-41, perhaps export contracts.



    You have to decide MiG-35 or new fighters with 2030s tech.
    We are in 2018 not in 2030 remember?

    2018 is ending now. 6 first MiGs has to be delivered by 2023.  What a Face  What a Face  What a Face You wont get any numbers before 2025+. in early 2030s you can have new model fighters.  I cannot see any rationale for procurement unless that is being cool is enough for military.


    Oh yes fighter is cool, it can do its job, decent performance but first of all this want ever military project bu MiG own project. Military decided to invest money now in drones as you dont need to train pilots to do the job. Unmanned fighters will be the future. No human restrictions and you can make as many as your factories can make.





    If they can use the platform and update it then they are saving, massively.
    if they wont buy they save even more.




    LMFS wrote:Well in fact it is our problem if you knowingly flood the forum with false data  What a Face
    meh its theirs too  lol1  lol1  lol1





    Don't know your experience, but developing and testing something moderately complex is extremely effort intensive and time consuming, so imagine a fighter aircraft.

    meh onely what i ever contributed to was making nails lol1 lol1 lol1
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:42 am

    I hope this is reliable news. In suc case Modi's poicy is now cleat heading towards Independence. Ready to fight for it.

    Russia and India Negotiating Contract for Elite New MiG-35 Fighters

    https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/russia-and-india-negotiating-contract-for-elite-new-mig-35-fighters


    In the aftermath of the signing of a landmark deal under which Russia is to provide India's armed forces with several units of the S-400 surface to air missile system, the two longstanding partners are reportedly negotiating a number of other weapons contracts -{} Delhi has also shown interest in acquiring lighter MiG-35 next generation twin engine combat jets.

    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS on Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:01 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:I hope this is reliable news. In suc case Modi's poicy is now cleat heading towards Independence. Ready to fight for it.  

    Russia and India Negotiating Contract for Elite New MiG-35 Fighters


    https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/russia-and-india-negotiating-contract-for-elite-new-mig-35-fighters


    In the aftermath of the signing of a landmark deal under which Russia is to provide India's armed forces with several units of the S-400 surface to air missile system, the two longstanding partners are reportedly negotiating a number of other weapons contracts -{} Delhi has also shown interest in acquiring lighter MiG-35 next generation twin engine combat jets.

    We have this already in the MiG-35 thread, the forum has "decided" that it is not reliable, though Garry and I insist it can make sense lol1

    I have to say: if Zhuk-A goes forward and after the scolding from the orange guy for buying the S-400, if I were Modi I would be already preparing the contract for the MiGs...

    Regarding RuAF: they are not "saturated" with new fighters, in fact the fleet is a far cry from the numbers deployed in Soviet times. So it is not "unnecessary" to buy capable fighters, for God's sake, Israel and Korea alone have more modern fighters than Russia...
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22406
    Points : 22950
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB on Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:12 am

    Mig-35 is a product for export first.

    First of all, no it isn't, and second of all, the Su-30 pretty much is too, yet the Russian military are buying those as well.

    A better stealth design would have give him precious advantage over other competitors in many countries.

    To make it more stealthy would be to greatly increase the cost to buy and the cost to operate and it is never going to actually be stealthy...

    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.

    So. The MiG-35 is a good fighter.

    Russia will go only with sukhoi and mig-41 as interceptor.

    Bullshit.

    Russia has ordered 6 MiG-35s for now... which isn't a huge amount but the first orders are never large... they have only ordered 12 Su-57s.

    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 are the other options?

    How advanced in the MiG-35?

    You are making claims... please back those claims up so we can consider them as being facts rather than opinion.


    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.

    What was wrong with the MiG-29 design except old avionics and radar and engines?

    This cleaner design won't make it low observable against modern radars.

    When you use the thing you need to hang weapons under the wings or it is no use... when you hang weapons under the wings it wont be stealthy any more... so there is no point in making it stealthy or trying to.

    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.

    But you say what they need to do is make it more stealthy... are you trying to be funny?

    You might as well say F-35 is too expensive and what it needs is to be even more stealthy... lets spend another trillion dollars to make it more stealthy... 500 million per aircraft will still be too expensive but I can wax on on the internet about how f'ing stealthy it is...

    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.

    So a brand new design that is just as agile, but cheaper... of course... take any design and completely redesign it to get the same performance but make it cheaper... perhaps modify the engines so it sucks in carbon and plastic rubbish and all that comes out of the exhaust is puppies and LGBT rainbows...

    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.

    Wow... Mr war expert... you have found the secret... a much more expensive MiG-35 that would only be stealthy when it only has 2-3 missiles is obviously what they need to focus on... because in the future when they have Su-57s flying around being stealthy what they really need is a MiG-35 with 2-3 missiles to support them... along with Su-35s with 12 or more missiles externally...

    A new radar that can detect the enemy first without showing its presence like a lighthouse, and good missiles is all it needs... it will have jammers and decoys to defend itself from anything the enemy can attack it with.

    or just read LM site with understanding?

    Yeah.... that is LM in lie mode...  Twisted Evil

    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?

    Most of it is politics... look at the F-4 Phantom... there is no reason why a carrier aircraft and a land based fighter need to be different except that the companies that make planes tended to specialise in either land or sea aircraft.... how many Mil helicopters are there in the Russian Navy... do you really think it is because they don't know how to make them compatible with the Marine environment?

    Equally how many land based Kamov helos are there?

    Ka-226 soon, but otherwise...

    Thank you for agreeing with me

    So the key is to use the best aircraft you can so when they meet in combat they have an advantage...

    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?

    If you start a race with a vertical climb then that limits what sort of stuff you can carry... if you a climbing a vertical cliff face you can't take a motorbike with you... if you have a rolling takeoff a motorbike can get you moving real fast real quick.

    its LM problem  not mine   lol1  lol1  lol1  Same with Su-33's magical payload which turned out to be 3300kg in A2A

    The problem is you.

    You think max theoretical payload must be max payload and it simply isn't.

    The Su-24 had 8 weapon pylons each rated at 1,000km each, so the max payload is often given as 8 tons... except a normal payload is actually about 3 tons...

    The theoretical max payload of an F-16 is 7 tons but it has never flown with anything like that payload weight... ever.

    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.

    Why?

    There is no reason why an F-4 Phantom could not operate today in Europe as a fighter... new engines, new radar, new missiles.... it might burn more fuel than a brand new aircraft, but with new engines that will only be because of the extra drag of the old airframe... at the end of the day an F-4 will be a fraction of the cost of an F-35... it will be able to shoot stuff down just as effectively and with all the old shit replaced with new shit it will be cheaper to maintain and operate and a fraction of the cost to build and buy.

    It remained in service until replaced by Typhoon... but was there really a threat that required the expensive Typhoon to replace it?

    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.

    Funny thing is that this MiG-35 that is obsolete and he wants to get rid of would be the most advanced fighter Russia has in service except for their expensive stealth fighter Su-57.

    The first Russian fighter with AESA needs replacing already... but exactly what do you fill the gap with for the next 15 years while the new fighter is being developed?

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

    There are more AESA radars on a Russian ship than on the Su-57...

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

    Which is what makes it such an excellent fighter for Russia and for export... it will be underestimated by the enemy... and that will come at a real cost to the enemy.

    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.

    The radar in the MiG-35 might not be perfect, but it will be the first of its generation and will only get better with experience and production...

    I guess the total lack of a radar in the Yak-130 means they should all be replaced with Su-57s too?

    Can Russia afford to replace all its current fighters with the biggest and most expensive planes it makes?

    Why piss around with Su-30s and Su-35s if Su-57s are better?

    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.

    Bigger aircraft are more expensive to operate... larger aircraft compensate for the extra drag and extra weight with more powerful engines that burn more fuel.

    When Su-30 and Su-35 get AESA their prices will likely double.

    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.

    The Su-35 is no faster than a MiG-35, so with its longer flight range you try to use fewer aircraft to cover more area you are actually reducing your coverage and protection.

    Most Su-27s in Russian AF use don't operate with full internal fuel so most of the time that extra size is a waste in western europe where the operational distances are not really that big.

    A smaller aircraft would be rather more useful, simply because it would offer better coverage... if you need it to operate over a larger area it has inflight refuelling capability so the only real difference is radar apeture... and comparing an AESA with a bigger PESA... they will be very similar at the moment... but over the next decade or so the AESA is going to develop much much more than the PESA... which has already gone through plenty of upgrades and improvements.

    When you buy a new car and you already have a small car for use in the city, you buy a bigger car to tow the boat, or to go skiing, or go camping... you don't buy another small car... and if you have a big car the wife will want a smaller car that is easier to park and drive around the city...

    At a more fundamental level there are a number of supply contractors that each work with a design bureau... Klimov work with MiG, and NIIP work with MiG... if MiG disappears then you have a Sukhoi monopoly... and they can start dictating terms...

    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.

    I disagree.

    Small cheap single engined fighter... has not existed since the MiG-21 and it had enormous limitations that made it very weak in a lot of roles... poor payload and poor range... good speed... small and cheap to operate.

    But you start putting modern avionics and radar and engine and it stops being cheap and simple.

    Instead of being slightly behind the Flankers like the MiG-35 is in some parameters it will be very behind... and a lot less useful...

    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

    The Mig-35 is vastly better than what you think they need, which is a good thing because what you think they need would be inadequate.

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

    Getting an aircraft into mass production reduces costs...

    RuAF is close new fighters procurement saturation, why to add another logistic chain, production line and jut second fighters with much overlapping abilities?

    That extra chain is already in place... a better question is why close it down now that its finished product is ready for production... you wont get all that development money back.

    OAK has problem now with enough Sukhois' orders to keep factories running.

    They probably don't have enough production capacity for the demand, but international orders for MiG-35s will generate even more revenue.

    The companies that work with MiG to make the 35 are different from those that worked with Sukhoi to make their 35, so the technologies and abilities are actually different in many areas.

    A lot of people look at a MiG-29 and an Su-27 and ignorantly think they are the same plane but slightly differently scaled... the same people who look at a T-80 and a T-90 and think they are the same too... the insides are totally different, from different engines and radar and systems.

    MiG wont be jobless at all: Skat + MiG-41, perhaps export contracts.

    Of course they wont be jobless, but there will be no return on how many decades of investments and developments and hard work developing and improving systems... it is like your cynical analogy of unit price for the Su-57... 800 million per aircraft with only 12 made... except they wont get that much for them so lets say they pay 80 or 100 million... so a 700 million dollar loss on each aircraft... no company could carry that...

    Oh yes fighter is cool, it can do its job, decent performance but first of all this want ever military project bu MiG own project. Military decided to invest money now in drones as you dont need to train pilots to do the job. Unmanned fighters will be the future. No human restrictions and you can make as many as your factories can make.

    Hang on... so an order of 6 MiG-35s and you say the wont even bother eventually ordering more... they will just buy drones?

    Will it be the same with STOVL fighters for the Navy?

    if they wont buy they save even more.

    They also don't have an airforce any more... they have a job to do and the tools they are currently using to do that job need replacing... they can't wait till 2030 for drones to suddenly become ready... and there of course is that problem that the drones they have come up against so far have been pathetically easy to deal with with current technology let alone what will be available in 10 years time...

    I hope this is reliable news. In suc case Modi's poicy is now cleat heading towards Independence. Ready to fight for it.

    But hang on... they have Flankers in service... why don't they replace all their old fighters with new Flankers?

    I am sure an improved Su-30MKI could easily replace a MiG-21 or Jaguar...

    Regarding RuAF: they are not "saturated" with new fighters, in fact the fleet is a far cry from the numbers deployed in Soviet times. So it is not "unnecessary" to buy capable fighters, for God's sake, Israel and Korea alone have more modern fighters than Russia...

    Another factor is the numbers are rubbish... the Su-30 is supposed to be an affordable flanker while the Su-35 is the capable one and the Su-57 is the gold plated super next best thing... except the prices for the 30 and 35 seem about the same....

    And regarding US sanctions against India for buying Russian military equipment... this is what that looks like:

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Donald10
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:39 am

    LMFS wrote:We have this already in the MiG-35 thread, the forum has "decided" that it is not reliable, though Garry and I insist it can make sense lol1
    +++
    if I were Modi I would be already preparing the contract for the MiGs...


    of course it does ! India is still using Jaguars, Mirage-2000 or MiG-27s. This is 1++ generation leap thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup Russia without problems could share production tech, what for Modi is very important decision factor. Not to mention very reasonable unit price. OK after $210 mln per Rafale tit does make difference thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup




    Regarding RuAF: they are not "saturated" with new fighters, in fact the fleet is a far cry from the numbers deployed in Soviet times. So it is not "unnecessary" to buy capable fighters, for God's sake, Israel and Korea alone have more modern fighters than Russia...

    Didnt know Korea has so powerful air force. Meanwhile in Russia: were procured (some still to be delivered)
    Su-30SM.................152 (112+36)
    Su-30M2...................20
    Su-35S.....................98 (48+50)
    Su-27SM..................12
    MiG-29K...................24
    Mig-29SMT...............42
    MiG-35..................... .6
    Su-34......................150-200 in total till 2020 (after last infor form 2017)
    MiG-31BM................113 (to be modernized to BM tandard)
    ~
    VVS Staff said once ~700 fighters should be enough to protect Russia. Ther we have ~600. They are close to saturation of their procurement plans.
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS on Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:26 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Funny thing is that this MiG-35 that is obsolete and he wants to get rid of would be the most advanced fighter Russia has in service except for their expensive stealth fighter Su-57.

    The first Russian fighter with AESA needs replacing already... but exactly what do you fill the gap with for the next 15 years while the new fighter is being developed?
    With the STOVL with 2030's technologies but that is already in advanced state of development, of course!

    Russian sources are stubbornly insisting MiG-35 and Su-57 are the future. After getting info on the Zhuk-A, things start making sense for me. I may be wrong but it seems they are serious about buying the MiG...

    Like said before, in a very basic way: light fighter => numbers => cheap => 4G, non-stealthy mature platform => MiG-35

    I disagree.

    Small cheap single engined fighter... has not existed since the MiG-21 and it had enormous limitations that made it very weak in a lot of roles... poor payload and poor range... good speed... small and cheap to operate.

    But you start putting modern avionics and radar and engine and it stops being cheap and simple.

    Instead of being slightly behind the Flankers like the MiG-35 is in some parameters it will be very behind... and a lot less useful...
    Both arguments have merit I think, it is just a matter of where the sweet spot lies and that is only known to the operator.

    For instance, I agree that modern avionics have probably more weight in costs than a small delta in weight. So, to make a difference in costs (which are prohibitively high right now due to complex technologies) you need to address the still actionable cost drivers, one of the biggest being the engines, hence the single engine based on the same engine of the heavy fighter as a basic principle. Regarding avionics, l think that, if properly supported, not every aircraft needs all the bells and whistles. You could make squadrons where not all planes have radars maybe, if you were really serious about saving. Stealth could be limited to shaping and some RAS/RAM in flare spots and only if not causing the costs to explode... Russia will have Armatas but will have also heaps of T-72B3 to give a hand with their numbers too. For foreign operators which don't have Su-57s to save the day, you need to equip those little fighters with all that is available in terms of sensors and countermeasures. And then, they need to be capable to hold their own in air superiority roles. You are not going to match a heavy fighter in terms of range, payload and radar power aperture, but with good kinematics (speed/super cruise, service ceiling, agility, acceleration) you can very much prevent the bigger planes from controlling the engagement at will, at least as far as you have some AWACS or similar to control the air space.

    Pretty much what I think would be a single engine plane with the characteristics needed to complement Su-57 and have success in the export market is in my proposal some posts before. Would be smaller than the MiG-29 but not by much (11 tones empty weight vs 9-10). And with the blended wing-body design + long middle section I got (as a result at the end of the design exercise) almost 7000 kg (gross) of fuel capacity, without completely exhausting all the potentially available internal volume. This would mean more than 2500 km range on internal fuel in almost complete certainty.

    So I think a lighter fighter than the MiG-29 that is capable and cheaper is feasible. But by now and specially for the lower end fighters it is clearly better to exhaust the existing 4G platforms, until 5G technologies have been mastered and cost have been substantially reduced.

    The Mig-35 is vastly better than what you think they need, which is a good thing because what you think they need would be inadequate.
    Care detailing requirements in your opinion? With numbers please to avoid silly discussions when we both think the same XD

    Another factor is the numbers are rubbish... the Su-30 is supposed to be an affordable flanker while the Su-35 is the capable one and the Su-57 is the gold plated super next best thing... except the prices for the 30 and 35 seem about the same....

    And regarding US sanctions against India for buying Russian military equipment... this is what that looks like:

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Donald10

    Hahaha, perfect definition lol1 lol1 lol1

    Yeah well, I have many doubts about what is the clean procurement cost of a fighter for Russian Estate, but I guess such things get relativized when you are both the customer and the supplier... Rolling Eyes
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:02 am

    if they wont buy they save even more.
    They also don't have an airforce any more...

    They do, hey have ~600 capable fighters now, out of 700 needed by 2025. Let's wait how it develops.
    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2326878.html



    GarryB wrote:
    Mig-35 is a product for export first.
    First of all, no it isn't, and second of all, the Su-30 pretty much is too, yet the Russian military are buying those as well.
    +++
    {India} they have Flankers in service... why don't they replace all their old fighters with new Flankers?

    India: MiG-35 is in different niche. Reasons? thinks: Total cost of ownership (TCO) + new tech to acquire.

    Russia: 6 pieces till 2023. Perhaps the procure more perhaps not. Depending on money supply and risk of war. Russia has enough fighters for a time being and seems to invest in tomorrow's tech instead of multiplying "vintage" fighters.



    Russia will go only with sukhoi and mig-41 as interceptor.
    Bullshit.
    of courses ! you've forgotabout VSTOL lol1 lol1 lol1



    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.

    whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? MiG is OAK, as Sukhoi and Yak. The reports of MiG's death are greatly exaggerated.
    What are the other options? MiG is now buys with MiG-41 and drones. Perhaps also with VSTOL.




    You might as well say F-35 is too expensive and what it needs is to be even more stealthy... lets spend another trillion dollars to make it more stealthy.

    just funnies column:

    Rafale (after wiki)

    fly away cost..................... €68-79 mln (i took €70mln = now $81mln)
    Cost of program..................$63bln
    number buil........................165 (as for July 2018)

    total cost: $380mln + $80mln -> $460mln only


    F-35

    cost of program..................$1500bln
    fly away cost for US nvy......$130 (rounded up)
    number built......................320..(spetember 2018)

    $4,680bln+130 = $4,8 bln cheers cheers cheers







    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?

    Most of it is politics......
    [/quote]
    Then why are you trying to fight with reality?




    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?

    If you start a race with a vertical climb then that limits what sort of stuff you can carry... if you a climbing a vertical cliff face you can't take a motorbike with you... if you have a rolling takeoff a motorbike can get you moving real fast real quick.

    why should you supposed to always takeoff vertically? payload and weight will always be penalty for something else.





    Why?There is no reason why an F-4 Phantom could not operate today in Europe as a fighter...
    It remained in service until replaced by Typhoon... but was there really a threat that required the expensive Typhoon to replace it?

    Typhoon was EU design not US. Why European were to buy US stuff only? F-4 was built in 5000+ units. Typhoon in 623 (after wiki).
    Damn, then MiG-21 and 23 should be also ok. Why do you need MiG-35? you could safe even more.



    .
    RuAF is close new fighters procurement saturation, why to add another logistic chain, production line and jut second fighters with much overlapping abilities?
    T.. a better question is why close it down now that its finished product is ready for production... you wont get all that development money back

    Perhaps MiG but MoD not necessarily.



    OAK has problem now with enough Sukhois' orders to keep factories running.
    They probably don't have enough production capacity for the demand, but international orders for MiG-35s will generate even more revenue.

    Not really they need to keep factories running as long as MS-21 will be made in Irkut AFAIK.



    That extra chain is already in place.
    +++
    A lot of people look at a MiG-29 and an Su-27 and ignorantly think they are the same plane but slightly differently scaled...

    OK make up your mind which of lines above is true?





    Of course they wont be jobless, but there will be no return on how many decades of investments and developments and hard work developing and improving systems...
    doesn't matter, you dont need to spend on project made not on order of MoD with doubling existing fighters capabilities.




    it is like your cynical analogy of unit price for the Su-57... 800 million per aircraft with only 12 made... except they wont get that much for them so lets say they pay 80 or 100 million... so a 700 million dollar loss on each aircraft... no company could carry that.
    ..

    That's why this was paid by MoD. After MoD approved expenses and requirements. What isnt a case with MiG-35




    Hang on... so an order of 6 MiG-35s and you say the wont even bother eventually ordering more... they will just buy drones?
    Will it be the same with STOVL fighters for the Navy?

    They would unlikely IMO to order many more without hope for an export contract, Tey'd just shut down the project. VSTOL ? is very likely to be at least optionally unmanned.





    hproblem that the drones they have come up against so far have been pathetically easy to deal with with current technology let alone what will be available in 10 years time.

    So there is not tech progress? pretty strong statement. But lets get back to reality : in 2030s every new fighter will have at least optional drone mode. Check current requirements for any of next gen fighter. Show me then, which NATO countries, are planning to keep 80s designs in 2030s + ?



    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS on Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:21 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Didnt know Korea has so powerful air force. Meanwhile in Russia: were procured (some still to be delivered)
    Su-30SM.................152 (112+36)
    Su-30M2...................20
    Su-35S.....................98 (48+50)
    Su-27SM..................12
    MiG-29K...................24
    Mig-29SMT...............42
    MiG-35..................... .6
    Su-34......................150-200 in total till 2020 (after last infor form 2017)
    MiG-31BM................113 (to be modernized to BM tandard)
    ~
    VVS Staff said once ~700 fighters should be enough to protect Russia. Ther we have ~600. They are close to  saturation of their procurement plans.
    Wait, you forgot the 2 Su-57!!!

    Remove bombers interceptors and naval fighters, refine the numbers for the contracts above and then you come to actual numbers which are way lower than 700. Nothing strange if they buy 100 or 150 MiGs. There are well informed guys here insisting the MiGs are being phased out though... we need to see.
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1809
    Points : 1804
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  AlfaT8 on Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:38 pm

    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.

    How unfortunate.
    Because of upgrades to keep the platform relevant comes at a similar cost to the larger and more capable platform, they have have inadvertently caused the platform to fall into irrelevancy anyway.

    I am afraid even with the APU upgrade the Mig-35 still won't be able to compete much with the Flanker and would simply cause a price increase.
    They really need to either drop the price or focus on an improved Mig-29M+, which if the price of the Mig-29K is an indication would cost around $20~25mill per unit.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 3902
    Points : 3882
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:18 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Didnt know Korea has so powerful air force. Meanwhile in Russia: were procured (some still to be delivered)
    Su-30SM.................152 (112+36)
    Su-30M2...................20
    Su-35S.....................98 (48+50)
    Su-27SM..................12
    MiG-29K...................24
    Mig-29SMT...............42
    MiG-35..................... .6
    Su-34......................150-200 in total till 2020 (after last infor form 2017)
    MiG-31BM................113 (to be modernized to BM tandard)
    ~
    VVS Staff said once ~700 fighters should be enough to protect Russia. Ther we have ~600. They are close to  saturation of their procurement plans.
    Wait, you forgot the 2 Su-57!!!

    Remove bombers interceptors and naval fighters, refine the numbers for the contracts above and then you come to actual numbers which are way lower than 700. Nothing strange if they buy 100 or 150 MiGs. There are well informed guys here insisting the MiGs are being phased out though... we need to see.

    Correct.

    VVS will get their 700 fighters.  Combined with the bombers like Su-34 and Su-25, they will have at least close to 1000 jets.  Currently they only have 400~ or so for the VVS.  Maybe more.

    There are more Su-27's that are in use to be frank.  Don't know which models but many of them have been moved to western areas like Kaliningrad and Crimea.  So they have fair amount of fighter jets (over 400 for sure) but dunno.

    That other forum member has more details.

    By 2027 though, they should have their 700 fighters.  Or at least all ordered and waiting for delivery.

    I think currently the mod is also trying to determine what they want. Too many politicians and their viewpoints. But ultimately, they will have to come to a decision cause they all agreed on how much they need, but of what?

    We first heard, not too long ago that MiG-32BM was last of the MiG-31 jets. Then they had MiG-31K with Kinzhal. Now they are pushing for a total overhaul of the Zaslon radar (very curious what will it entail). I imagine that is what will happen to Su-30SM and Su-35. Right now they are really serious about ROFAR. They built two whole large facilities just to R&D and localize parts to build the photonic radar. They may be waiting to see how it turns out to determine what is next step, rather than just buying for sake of it, then having to spend even more to upgrade not long after.

    There is still lots of potential for the Su-30 and 35 jets.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:10 am

    LMFS wrote:

    VVS Staff said once ~700 fighters should be enough to protect Russia. Ther we have ~600. They are close to  saturation of their procurement plans.
    Wait, you forgot the 2 Su-57!!!

    Remove bombers interceptors and naval fighters, refine the numbers for the contracts above and then you come to actual numbers which are way lower than 700. Nothing strange if they buy 100 or 150 MiGs. There are well informed guys here insisting the MiGs are being phased out though... we need to see.


    First of  all this is just quotation of  article from BMPD what is quoting 2016 publication  in Lenta Suspect Suspect Suspect  Lets assume this might be more less correct.
    However nobody was sure if journo understood only RuAF or all Russian fighters park.  

    Why shall I remove  interceptors?  in Russian it is called: fighter-interceptor (истребитель-перехватчик). All publications about fighter numbers in Russian sources include MiG-31s.
    Su-30SMin RuN is bad and Su-30SM in RuAF is good?

    Su-57 was not forgotten, I listed only 4gen fighters. OK let's add them  however with ordered so far 12, this is changes 2% of all above amount. Im sure that after state tests with new engine (2nd stage) Su-57 will go in more numbers but it will be close to mid 2020s. Mind that Su-30+35 is not really build in more than 30 per annum. Su-57 is more demanding   2023 should end new state tests if  Im correct. So how many Su-57s can be build till 2025?  I dotn see it happening with more  than 50.  

    and who is well informed? you and GB and 007? respekt respekt respekt  

    IMHO  MiG-35 we need t see. I dont see the reason of making is in numbers without clear view for export.  MiG als o has limited number of aerospace design engineers so when thy are busy with MiG-35 they dont do anything for MiG-41 and UCAV Skat.  Sukhoi manufacturing lines are in full swing so why to hut them down and start with new ones?
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS on Sat Oct 13, 2018 2:12 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Why shall I remove  interceptors?  in Russian it is called: fighter-interceptor (истребитель-перехватчик). All publications about fighter numbers in Russian sources include MiG-31s.
    As you wish Milord. Not really changing the fact that RuAF has few modern fighters for a country of its size and military relevance.

    Su-30SMin RuN is bad and Su-30SM in RuAF is good?
    I thought we were talking about VVS fighters

    Su-57 was not forgotten, I listed only 4gen fighters. OK let's add them  however with ordered so far 12, this is changes 2% of all above amount. Im sure that after state tests with new engine (2nd stage) Su-57 will go in more numbers but it will be close to mid 2020s. Mind that Su-30+35 is not really build in more than 30 per annum. Su-57 is more demanding   2023 should end new state tests if  Im correct. So how many Su-57s can be build till 2025?  I dotn see it happening with more  than 50.
     
    2 Su-57 are crucial sure, is it so difficult to notice when I am joking? lol1 lol1

    and who is well informed? you and GB and 007? respekt respekt respekt
     
    007 not always... Cool

    IMHO  MiG-35 we need t see. I dont see the reason of making is in numbers without clear view for export.
    Of course it will be exported, if not I would doubt the Russian government was so keen on promoting it.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22406
    Points : 22950
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:51 am

    VVS Staff said once ~700 fighters should be enough to protect Russia. Ther we have ~600. They are close to saturation of their procurement plans.

    And why would VVS include VKO interceptors like MiG-31s, or strike aircraft like Su-34s?

    Going with your numbers:

    There are 282 Flankers and 72 Fulcrums... production of new MiG-35s will likely replace MiG-29s and then MiG-29SMTs, which will likely be retired so numbers are unlikely to ramp up dramatically and you say they want 700 aircraft as a minimum... that means they need rather more Flankers and Fulcrums if they want to meet those needs... of course you have not included Su-57s but there is little chance they will make thousands of those... but certainly a lot more Su-35s and Su-30s and MiG-35s are likely to fill the gaps.

    With the STOVL with 2030's technologies but that is already in advanced state of development, of course!

    What advanced state of development?

    It has just been given the go ahead... so first they will need an engine which is going to take at least 5 years, probably 10.

    Russian sources are stubbornly insisting MiG-35 and Su-57 are the future. After getting info on the Zhuk-A, things start making sense for me. I may be wrong but it seems they are serious about buying the MiG...

    Like said before, in a very basic way: light fighter => numbers => cheap => 4G, non-stealthy mature platform => MiG-35

    I can't see them putting all their eggs in the very expensive stealth basket... I would expect the Flankers and the MiG-35s will keep being produced alongside the new stealthy fighter Su-57...

    Both arguments have merit I think, it is just a matter of where the sweet spot lies and that is only known to the operator.

    Planes take 10 years to develop and put into service... operators requirements could change overnight...

    Regarding avionics, l think that, if properly supported, not every aircraft needs all the bells and whistles. You could make squadrons where not all planes have radars maybe, if you were really serious about saving.

    Would you tell the pilot?

    Hey dude... to save money one of your planes doesn't have a fully functioning ejection seat... good luck out there...

    We want you to win but don't want to pay for it...

    Hell... you could save hundreds of millions of dollars by just arming them with guns and dumb bombs...


    Sorry, but I disagree.

    And then, they need to be capable to hold their own in air superiority roles. You are not going to match a heavy fighter in terms of range, payload and radar power aperture, but with good kinematics (speed/super cruise, service ceiling, agility, acceleration) you can very much prevent the bigger planes from controlling the engagement at will, at least as far as you have some AWACS or similar to control the air space.

    If modern jamming systems make AAMs useless then it comes down to gun fighters a smaller lighter fighter with a good gun should be an advantage... an AWACS or ground radar can scan the skies and pass on target data... your datalink could just receive so as not to give away your presence to the enemy... unless they expose themselves by scanning the skies too.

    Care detailing requirements in your opinion? With numbers please to avoid silly discussions when we both think the same XD

    A single engined fighter with an 18 ton thrust engine would need to be 6-7 tons empty weight, and with a single engine you give up any benefit of Thrust Vector Control making any difference in its performance... it just doesn't work.

    I mean look at how the F-16 has evolved and got fatter and uglier and more expensive... it was supposed to be a cheap light day fighter too...

    They do, hey have ~600 capable fighters now, out of 700 needed by 2025. Let's wait how it develops.

    No they don't... you are including interceptors that don't belong to them and strike aircraft that are not fighters.

    Russia: 6 pieces till 2023. Perhaps the procure more perhaps not. Depending on money supply and risk of war. Russia has enough fighters for a time being and seems to invest in tomorrow's tech instead of multiplying "vintage" fighters.

    What 6 pieces?

    There will be Su-30, Su-35, MiG-35 in the unstealthy range and Su-57 in the stealthy stakes... that is four.

    just funnies column:

    But it is OK because they can afford it... the whole of NATO who are buying these things can afford it... or else.

    Then why are you trying to fight with reality?

    Politics doesn't necessarily win in Russia... if a system works and makes sense then it should be OK but if it is a dead end waste of money it will eventually get canned.


    why should you supposed to always takeoff vertically?

    that is the point of them... so they can operate on frigates and small ships... where they wont have space to land or take off any other way...

    Typhoon was EU design not US. Why European were to buy US stuff only? F-4 was built in 5000+ units. Typhoon in 623 (after wiki).

    EU is new Central and South America... you should be buying F-5s and Skyhawks...

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22406
    Points : 22950
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:08 pm

    Damn, then MiG-21 and 23 should be also ok. Why do you need MiG-35? you could safe even more.

    MiG-29 already invented and is superior, besides they are single engined...

    Perhaps MiG but MoD not necessarily.

    A lot of the technology and equipment developed for the MiG is unique and worth having in service.

    The numbers for aircraft you gave yourself show the Russians need a lot of new fighters soon... and they wont be making that many Su-57s...

    OK make up your mind which of lines above is true?

    The people who look at the MiG and the Sukhoi and think they are the same aircraft on a different scale are obviously wrong... unless you think an RD-33 is an AL-31...

    Show me then, which NATO countries, are planning to keep 80s designs in 2030s + ?

    When Syrian S-300s shoot down 10 Israeli F-35s I would say most NATO countries will have F-16s and Typhoons and Rafales in service while they develop their own drones and try to forget about the almost 2 trillion wasted... Razz

    Nothing strange if they buy 100 or 150 MiGs. There are well informed guys here insisting the MiGs are being phased out though... we need to see.

    Calling the brand new MiG-35 obsolete and not needed but not saying the same with the Su-35s and Su-30s being built and ordered...

    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.

    The best feature of an AESA is not its power or range... it is its ability to control the signals it emits so it can get away with very low hard to detect emissions when scanning for targets...

    Why shall I remove interceptors? in Russian it is called: fighter-interceptor (истребитель-перехватчик). All publications about fighter numbers in Russian sources include MiG-31s.
    Su-30SMin RuN is bad and Su-30SM in RuAF is good?

    Because in the quote you gave it was a comment by VVS staff... who likely don't care or don't know the requirements for the VKKO or the VMF...

    IMHO MiG-35 we need t see. I dont see the reason of making is in numbers without clear view for export. MiG als o has limited number of aerospace design engineers so when thy are busy with MiG-35 they dont do anything for MiG-41 and UCAV Skat. Sukhoi manufacturing lines are in full swing so why to hut them down and start with new ones?

    Why not keep both groups busy working on funded programmes that actually have money injected into them... they will have plenty of projects they are working on anyway...

    IMHO MiG-35 we need t see. I dont see the reason of making is in numbers without clear view for export.

    How about the fact that the numbers you posted show they need rather a lot more fighters if they are to get to the 700 mark they have talked about... I would say at least 100 more Flankers and 100-150 more Fulcrums...
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 3902
    Points : 3882
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  miketheterrible on Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:10 pm

    That is the plan.  By 2025/2027 it is supposed to have those 700 fighter jets.  I think they operate the 700 fighter jets right now, but that is through the older jets like Su-27's.  Which are still sufficient for now till 2025. There are also the active MiG-29's too.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:44 pm

    GB wrote:
    Why shall I remove  interceptors?  in Russian it is called: fighter-interceptor (истребитель-перехватчик). All publications about fighter numbers in Russian sources include MiG-31s.Su-30SMin RuN is bad and Su-30SM in RuAF is good?

    Because in the quote you gave it was a comment by VVS staff... who likely don't care or don't know the requirements for the VKKO or the VMF...

    because VVS counts in Su-34 and MiG-31 in fighter categories ?

    https://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/air/weapons/aviation.htm?f=1&fid=0&blk=10385557&objInBlock=24






    GarryB wrote:
    Damn, then MiG-21 and 23 should be also ok. Why do you need MiG-35? you could safe even more.
    MiG-29 already invented and is superior, besides they are single engined...[/quuote]

    do I get it correctly that MiG-35 is better then old models but new models are worse then MiG-35? Thus fighter when evolution reached the top level?


    Perhaps MiG but MoD not necessarily.
    A lot of the technology and equipment developed for the MiG is unique and worth having in service.
    The numbers for aircraft you gave yourself show the Russians need a lot of new fighters soon... and they wont be making that many Su-57s...

    I agree that Su-57 is not going to be most numerous Russian fighter but price is 2xSu-30SM or 3xSu-34 only. They wiell be procured 300-400 in total so why not 200 Su-57 once they will be retired? First of all MiG-35 was not done on MoD request. Looks like it was not planned by MoD.


    Why technology is to be wasted? Rd-33 (pr its modification) is going to power Skats, avionics, material can be used in new programmes.




    Show me then, which NATO countries, are planning to keep 80s designs in 2030s + ?
    When Syrian S-300s shoot down 10 Israeli F-35s I would say most NATO countries will have F-16s and Typhoons and Rafales in service while they develop their own drones and try to forget about the almost 2 trillion wasted...    Razz [/quote]

    This has nothing to do with my question. Still valid: which NATO countries gave up design of new fighters and decided to keep 80s designs after 2040?




    IMHO  MiG-35 we need t see. I dont see the reason of making is in numbers without clear view for export.  MiG als o has limited number of aerospace design engineers so when thy are busy with MiG-35 they dont do anything for MiG-41 and UCAV Skat.  Sukhoi manufacturing lines are in full swing so why to hut them down and start with new ones?
    Why not keep both groups busy working on funded programmes that actually have money injected into them... they will have plenty of projects they are working on anyway...

    That's precisely what I am talking about. From all Russian sources there are 3 programmes active: MiG-41 or new VSTOL fighter. Not sure if 6gen fighter will be one of them or on top.





    IMHO  MiG-35 we need t see. I dont see the reason of making is in numbers without clear view for export.
    How about the fact that the numbers you posted show they need rather a lot more fighters if they are to get to the 700 mark they have talked about... I would say at least 100 more Flankers and 100-150 more Fulcrums...[/quote]


    They have already about 600. Till 2025 they can easily add more flankers and first of all Su-57s. And in 2030 next gen fighters.




    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:47 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:That is the plan.  By 2025/2027 it is supposed to have those 700 fighter jets.  I think they operate the 700 fighter jets right now, but that is through the older jets like Su-27's.  Which are still sufficient for now till 2025.  There are also the active MiG-29's too.  


    I'd say 700 battle worthy (both design tech and service life). But true they are close to this numbers. So no MiG-29 but MiG-29SMT, not Su-27 but Su-27SM3 for example.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:55 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Why shall I remove  interceptors?  in Russian it is called: fighter-interceptor (истребитель-перехватчик). All publications about fighter numbers in Russian sources include MiG-31s.
    As you wish Milord. Not really changing the fact that RuAF has few modern fighters for a country of its size and military relevance.


    Then you know what are needs of Russian VVS better then they do.  They said: 700 or more fighters. There will according to available data ~600 units are either already there or contracted.  There are still 7 years to build and contract remaining 100+

    only Not only MiG-31 but also  Su-34 are counted in as fighters. Check at VVS site. There are 30-50  build every year. Till 2025 you have still

    https://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/air/weapons/aviation.htm?objInBlock=10&fid=0&blk=10385557



    and who is well informed? you and GB and 007? respekt respekt respekt
     007 not always...  Cool

    aaaaa in DAT case thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup




    IMHO  MiG-35 we need t see. I dont see the reason of making is in numbers without clear view for export.
    Of course it will be exported, if not I would doubt the Russian government was so keen on promoting it.

    I agree. To me export is the main reson for any MiG-35 talks.
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS on Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:00 pm

    GarryB wrote:I can't see them putting all their eggs in the very expensive stealth basket... I would expect the Flankers and the MiG-35s will keep being produced alongside the new stealthy fighter Su-57...
    There are ongoing contracts for Su-30 and 35, so they will keep coming.

    Planes take 10 years to develop and put into service... operators requirements could change overnight...
    They better have more resilient plans, otherwise they will never manage to get a long term development accomplished. Sensibility analyses need to be performed and a solution that fits several scenarios chosen.

    Would you tell the pilot?

    Hey dude... to save money one of your planes doesn't have a fully functioning ejection seat... good luck out there...

    We want you to win but don't want to pay for it...

    Hell... you could save hundreds of millions of dollars by just arming them with guns and dumb bombs...


    Sorry, but I disagree.
    Economic compromise is a constant like it or not. Servicemen do not receive the best to do their job but what is deemed necessary, and only if it can be afforded. I mean, there is nothing to discuss there. Of course you need to see what things are needed and what not, maybe the idea is not good but the whole sense of light fighters is to exchange capabilities for numbers.

    Two important cost drivers are price of engines and radar, which are getting to a point where they are simply prohibitive. A modern fighter radar in the West can cost ca. 10 million... this is half the price you would expect from a complete light fighter in Russia. Sadly don't have prices for similar systems in Russia, but you an imagine AESAs are not going to be cheaper than previous radars in the short and medium term. If you use these light fighters for instance in wings of four, what is the problem when two of them have active radars and the other two only passive detectors for instance? For many missions the goal is to use these smaller planes as extra magazines and non-emitting complement for bigger ones so do not see the big sin of thinking whether this could work. Also a modern light fighter would be developed quite probably as optionally manned as a wingman for another plane, based exactly in the same principle of having a cheaper resource to help. This was BTW the reason for the crude BVR performance of the MiG-29s according to Soviet doctrine, they were thought to be guided towards the targets by ground command, so not inventing nothing new here.

    If modern jamming systems make AAMs useless then it comes down to gun fighters a smaller lighter fighter with a good gun should be an advantage... an AWACS or ground radar can scan the skies and pass on target data... your datalink could just receive so as not to give away your presence to the enemy... unless they expose themselves by scanning the skies too.
    Yes the idea is for them to act passively as much as possible. Maybe ROFAR improves so much detection ranges that smaller fighters are not handicapped against bigger ones (in the sense that missiles are the limiting factor and not the radar detection range) so they do not need to rely on datalinks so much.

    Not sure though that technology will bring back the cannon fights as a predominant form of combat. And if so, DEW should also be counted on and not only the 30 mm rounds. Very difficult to know what of the possible disruptive technologies in development will come first.

    A single engined fighter with an 18 ton thrust engine would need to be 6-7 tons empty weight, and with a single engine you give up any benefit of Thrust Vector Control making any difference in its performance... it just doesn't work.

    I mean look at how the F-16 has evolved and got fatter and uglier and more expensive... it was supposed to be a cheap light day fighter too...
    6-7 tons empty? Why? For instance a fighter with 1 x izd 30 would have the same T/W ratio of Su-57 with empty weight slightly above 9 tons, and we talk about the absolute best T/W ratio around. Such plane could have acceptable payload and range, I am inclined to think, because I have done the effort of researching a bit on that. Internal payload roughly halved yes, but still dangerous

    TVC still provides most of the advantages of two engine fighters, only roll moment is missing, but again the force arm in that case is very small compared to that of the ailerons so you are not loosing so much, in case of loss of aileron control you could do almost the same with differential deflection of canards or elevators unless air speed is rigorously zero. Still, the most valuable contributions of TVC for turning and trimming are there.

    Regarding the F-16, its continuous development and application to roles well beyond the planed ones are only proof of a extraordinarily successful design philosophy and airframe. Why to use a plane which is expensive to purchase and operate when most missions can be performed by the F-16?

    Gunship wrote:Check at VVS site. There are 30-50 build every year. Till 2025 you have still

    https://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/air/weapons/aviation.htm?objInBlock=10&fid=0&blk=10385557
    Will check this thanks

    Sponsored content

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 13 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:58 pm