5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

GarryB wrote:

Both Kh-50 and GZUR are designed to for inside Tu-22M3 x6. I.e. size must be ~ Ks-15. However Janes says 1,600kg for  Kh-50. I guess assuming GZUR will be similar insize. Range of both (Janes) 1,500km.

So GZUR is likely a replacement for the Kh-15 Kickback then...

only 5x longer range and in first phase 6Ma (second one AFAIK in late 20s  12Ma). Ii'sgonna be primary standoffweapon for Tu-22M3  ut I guess ti wont hurt to integrate thereof with  deck fighters.

https://army-news.ru/2017/12/izdelie-715-i-izdelie-75-ssha-zhdet-karayushhij-udar-s-neba/?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com

perhaps but Yak-38 and (mproved Yak-38m -cancelled for Yak-41) are dead for 30years.

The fault in the design stemmed from the demand that they be transonic or supersonic, and therefore were fitted with thin low drag small wings.
A large high lift wing would be much more use during landing and takeoff in the rolling takeoff and rolling landing mode... it would be dead weight in a vertical landing or takeoff but you would only takeoff or land vertically in an emergency anyway... which would make ditching fuel and weapons acceptable...

Not sure abut demands about wing shape but for whatever reason they designed this. Later models were different, look below final evolution stage model of Yak-41M.  But no Yak-38 could land/takeoff with weapons under wings.

As for ideal landing what about 2 fighters lost crashing in Syria. But they were STOBAR.

The arrester gear system was faulty... when it is working the STOBAR

In battle conditions unacceptable useless STOBAR. When working? but it is not working.  couple of flights crash after crash. Crap.

not sure what you are smoking now but Su-57 is onpair with MiG-35? DAT must be hard stuff. Can get one?

If the mission is to fly out into the Black Sea into international airspace and escort a JSTARS aircraft that has somehow gotten lost a MiG-35 could do every bit as good a job as an Su-57, without giving up any stealth secrets to those yanks...[/quote]


aaa not  as a  real fighter but low end JSTARS interceptor then OK.

meh in  10 years MiG-35 will be even deader then now

Excellent... so not dead at all.

Itis dead now, in 10 years will be even deader      

mind elaborate  how it comes that the best Russian fighter ever is almost dead an only worse Su-57 or Su-35 are still produced?

Your selective memory... all three are in production and have orders from the Russian Air Force.

Su-35 ~100ordered

Su-57 12 on order,  new engine duilt and waiting till 2023 to start massive procurement

MiG-35 after 10 years of "we're going to sign large contract!!!" and losing Indian tender ordered in 6 pieces. 4 MiG-35 and 2 MiG-35UB

Are you saying that only an expensive new 5th gen STOVL fighter aircraft could be used to control 6th gen drones that will do all the fighting in the future?
Why not control them from cheap current generation fighters... especially considering the new 5th gen Russian fighters are all single seat aircraft while the 4+++th gen fighters come in single and two seat models... which would make them even better suited to controlling drones.

(1) not VSTOL but CATOBAR        as for controlling drones it is not my idea but US AF.
(2) Because current gen fighters are going to end of service life cycle.
(3) Russia would need to build new-old designs.

Disclosed details about the engine for a lightweight fighter 5 generation



The development of the engine for the fifth generation Russian light fighter is based on the RD-33

The engine for the fifth generation lightweight fighter can be built on the basis of the RD-33, which is also installed on MiG-29 fighters. About this in an interview with "Star" said the executive director of JSC "ODK-Klimov" Alexander Vatagin.

"Historically, we are engaged in the engine for a lightweight fighter. If we talk about the work on the creation of a fifth-generation fighter, then this is a heavy fighter (Su-57 - ed.) it has potential and at its base a more modern engine can be created, which can be attributed to fifth-generation engines with a load of up to 11 tons. We are working on this, "said Vatagin.

RD-33 - twin-turbojet twin-shaft turbojet with afterburner (TRDDF). Maximum unformed for RD-33K - 5400 kgf, afterburner 8,800 kgf. The maximum thrust (during emergency take-off mode) is 9,400 kgf. The engine is installed including the latest modification of the MiG-29, MiG-35.

The creation of a fifth-generation lightweight fighter in July 2017 was announced by Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin.

Earlier, Evgeny Marchukov, General Designer-Director of the Design Bureau named after A. Lyulka, in an exclusive interview with Zvezda, said that the fifth generation engine for the Su-57 exceeds in its specific weight all analogues in the world.

In September of this year, Yury Kondratyev, deputy technical director of Komsomolsk-on-Amur Gagarin Aviation Plant, told Zvezda correspondent that the engine of the second stage was created in the same dimensions as the AL-41F1, therefore, no major modifications would be required .

In addition, he noted that this engine will also receive planes in combat units.


https://vpk.name/news/238008_raskryityi_podrobnosti_o_dvigatele_dlya_legkogo_istrebitelya_5_pokoleniya.html

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Disclosed details about the engine for a lightweight fighter 5 generation
The development of the engine for the fifth generation Russian light fighter is based on the RD-33

well, VSTOL powered by RD-33 derivative? in this case rather 2 of them like MiG-35 not like MiG-21 ;-)[/quote]

So Klimov also wants their portion of the 5G pie, logically. It is important to keep a healthy and diverse industrial environment, but maybe another 5G fighter engine is not the best in a strict technical/economic sense, once izd. 30 would be enough for a light fighter and it is close to being ready.

In any case, this confirms nothing regarding a light Russian 5G fighter, only that Klimov is trying to be ready for an eventual request.

LMFS wrote:So Klimov also wants their portion of the 5G pie, logically. It is important to keep a healthy and diverse industrial environment, but maybe another 5G fighter engine is not the best in a strict technical/economic sense, once izd. 30 would be enough for a light fighter and it is close to being ready.

In any case, this confirms nothing regarding a light Russian 5G fighter, only that Klimov is trying to be ready for an eventual request.

True, but is this wise to relay only on 1 model of engine? that's the other question.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:True, but is this wise to relay only on 1 model of engine? that's the other question.

What would be the risk of it? Almost all the engines for Russian planes are single source already, in this case you would have two planes depending on the same type. This would lead to economies of scale, faster and cheaper troubleshooting and upgrade development. Would be great for logistics and maintenance of mixed regiments too. As far as the engines are not Ukrainian it should be safe to count on them I would say...

LMFS wrote:So Klimov also wants their portion of the 5G pie, logically. It is important to keep a healthy and diverse industrial environment, but maybe another 5G fighter engine is not the best in a strict technical/economic sense, once izd. 30 would be enough for a light fighter and it is close to being ready.

In any case, this confirms nothing regarding a light Russian 5G fighter, only that Klimov is trying to be ready for an eventual request.

Sukhoi and MiG have their own suppliers, no reason to have them go rusty and go to dust, what is this the 90's? Just because YOU want a a single engine fighter, doesn't mean the VKS wants one, and I've yet to see proof otherwise.

Having another engine option is good for a variety of uses... right now it is not being used but then how could it be?

A 5th gen RD-33 in an 11-12 ton thrust range would be interesting... make it a higher bypass turbofan in the 16-18 ton thrust and it could be a replacement for the PS-90 in the Il-476/Il-276 and of course the Il-106... you could use it on a new amphibious aircraft based on the A-42... it could be used as the engine for a naval AWACS platform... and it could be used in a wide range of ground based electricity generation systems...

It would make the Yak-130 a rocket ship... and in a twin jet set up could make a light 5th gen fighter with widely spaced engines and an enormous internal capacity between those two engines for internal weapons of decent size and number for a change... it would make the plane a bit chunky but with 22-24 tons thrust that would be OK.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

LMFS wrote:So Klimov also wants their portion of the 5G pie, logically. It is important to keep a healthy and diverse industrial environment, but maybe another 5G fighter engine is not the best in a strict technical/economic sense, once izd. 30 would be enough for a light fighter and it is close to being ready.

In any case, this confirms nothing regarding a light Russian 5G fighter, only that Klimov is trying to be ready for an eventual request.

Sukhoi and MiG have their own suppliers, no reason to have them go rusty and go to dust, what is this the 90's? Just because YOU want a a single engine fighter, doesn't mean the VKS wants one, and I've yet to see proof otherwise.

No, I don't "want" anything in particular and I am also not suggesting to close design bureaus and factories just because engine lines are consolidated. What I mean is this may be more an industrial base issue than a capability one. Of course MoD will know where the best lies better than any of us.

An article on Sputnik Germany says it shall be between the Yak-130 and the MiG-35 and will receive one engine.

Are they stupid at mig? Every small country need a small single engine jet and they continue to develop twin engines while sukhoi takes all their client and China/USA are selling their single engine jets like little breads and taking all the clients.

Isos wrote:Are they stupid at mig? Every small country need a small single engine jet and they continue to develop twin engines while sukhoi takes all their client and China/USA are selling their single engine jets like little breads and taking all the clients.

Their not stupid, they're in fact smart:

1.) Two engines are less expensive than one engine that fails and causes a plane crash. On the occasion that one engine stops functioning mid-flight, the second functioning engine should allow the pilot to fly home safely, but a one engine aircraft doesn't allow any other option other than ejection jettisoning out the aircraft.

2.) Export sails are highly politicized. Take Thailand for example, their leadership is adamant at avoiding buying Russian to the point where they'll take their chances on unproven and unreliable Ukrainian products, even to the point of those products failing on them. Similarly you'll never see Indian, Indonesian, or Vietnamese purchasing Chinese equipment, and most of the United States export sales come from a combination of bribery and extortion. Russian products are by far the most cost-effective, compare the Mi-26 with the American Chinook. The Mi-26 has double the payload, but its half the price of a Chinook, that's like a factor of 4 cost-effectiveness in favor of the Russian Mi-26. Even Russian two engine aircraft are usually cheaper than their one engine Western counterpart.

3.) All examples of dog-fighting worthy thrust vectoring engine nozzles are seen on two-engine fighters. The only cases of single engine thrust vectoring is almost exclusively for VTOL aircraft (such as the F-35B).

If another country wants a single engine fighter then they can make an order.... right now MiG are looking at their main customer... the Russian Air Force and the Russian Air Force don't want single engined fighters.

Multi engined ground vehicles rarely make sense, but for aircraft it clearly does make sense.

There are certain ratios that work... for instance the only aircraft that have three engines are civilian aircraft and they basically use three engines because two of those engines are used for low power cruise, while all three engines at full thrust allow shorter and safer takeoffs.

For a jet fighter having a single engine means that engine must be bigger and much more powerful than if it had two engines.

Two engines means greater frontal area, which can increase RCS, but it can also mean tandem weapons carriage which reduces drag and RCS...

Having two jet engines does not double fuel consumption.

Having two engines means thrust vector engine performance is greatly improved because differential movement of the TVC exhausts means you can roll as well as pitch and yaw in flight in what is effectively a stall.

BTW if single engine design makes a plane cheap to operate and maintain then explain the F-35 and Gripen... both single engined aircraft and both proven to be rather more expensive to maintain than promised...

If another country wants a single engine fighter then they can make an order.... right now MiG are looking at their main customer... the Russian Air Force and the Russian Air Force don't want single engined fighters.

Yep they ordered jf-17, tejas, gripen or f35.

Where did you read they don't want it ?

For a jet fighter having a single engine means that engine must be bigger and much more powerful than if it had two engines.

Wrong. Jf-17 has one engine, the same as the one on mig-29 and it is a pretty good aircraft. Single engine means lighter jet, not a sukhoi class.

True if you want a single engine version of existing twin engine jet. But that's not the case here.

Two engines means greater frontal area, which can increase RCS, but it can also mean tandem weapons carriage which reduces drag and RCS...

Light jets are meant to be armed with few weapons and improve servicability of your airforce and keep prices of exploitation low.

If your light jet don't achieve that it is not necessary to buy it.

Having two jet engines does not double fuel consumption.

But everything comes by 2. Even if it smaller it doesn't mean it's two times less expensive than a bigger engine. For a foreign country it's worse because they import the part which are factured at higher prices and every time they need to buy 2 part. For a bigger engine each part woukd be more expensive but by buying only one you can expect every part 25% cheaper than 2 same but smaller parts.

Having two engines means thrust vector engine performance is greatly improved because differential movement of the TVC exhausts means you can roll as well as pitch and yaw in flight in what is effectively a stall.

Mig ingineers already said they are not impressed by TVC perf. For interception, bombing and anti ship mission it is useless.

BTW if single engine design makes a plane cheap to operate and maintain then explain the F-35 and Gripen... both single engined aircraft and both proven to be rather more expensive to maintain than promised...

Your comparison is bullshit.

Number of engines are not the only parameter. F-35 is cheaper than f-22. Gripen would be cheaper than a sweedish twin engine gripen. A russian light single engine mig will be cheaper than a mig-35 or a su-35.

An article on Sputnik Germany says it shall be between the Yak-130 and the MiG-35 and will receive one engine.

You guys think MiG is stupid but you don't question the idea of a fighter plane between a light weight training aircraft and the current light fighter that they currently use... and ignore the conscious effort they made in the post cold war period to remove all single engined fighters and fighter bombers from service.

OK.

Yep they ordered jf-17, tejas, gripen or f35.

The Russian Air Force has never ordered Tejas or JF-17 or gripen or F-35.

When has MiG made a military aircraft for export only?

Where did you read they don't want it ?

The tender is clearly for a twin engined aircraft.

Wrong. Jf-17 has one engine, the same as the one on mig-29 and it is a pretty good aircraft. Single engine means lighter jet, not a sukhoi class.

True if you want a single engine version of existing twin engine jet. But that's not the case here.

The JF-17 is a MiG-21 with the air intakes moved to the wingroots... MiG designed dozens of different variations and the Russian military rejected them... why revisit history?

Light jets are meant to be armed with few weapons and improve servicability of your airforce and keep prices of exploitation low.

Having lots of weak useless aircraft means more manpower is wasted providing HATO with cannon fodder and would be totally pointless for Russia.

They are not going to have thousands of fighters, so the ones they do have need to be capable... so it does not matter if they cost a little more per airframe.

If you want cheap then use drones like their S-70 to support more modern and capable fighters...

If your light jet don't achieve that it is not necessary to buy it.

They don't need another MiG-21... the days of MiG-21 types are gone.

But everything comes by 2. Even if it smaller it doesn't mean it's two times less expensive than a bigger engine.

Most standard systems are doubled anyway... it is called redundancy and is a good thing.

For a foreign country it's worse because they import the part which are factured at higher prices and every time they need to buy 2 part. For a bigger engine each part woukd be more expensive but by buying only one you can expect every part 25% cheaper than 2 same but smaller parts.

Please... France and the US make most of their money on spare parts and support contracts... and they are going to make lots of money whether the aircraft has one engine or ten.

Mig ingineers already said they are not impressed by TVC perf. For interception, bombing and anti ship mission it is useless.

Actually for interception it is very useful, because it allows the pilot to effectively trim the aircraft minimising drag and reducing RCS.

For dogfighting it makes the plane a supreme dogfighter that a western fighter like the F-35 or Typhoon or Rafale can't match.

Your comparison is bullshit.

Number of engines are not the only parameter. F-35 is cheaper than f-22. Gripen would be cheaper than a sweedish twin engine gripen. A russian light single engine mig will be cheaper than a mig-35 or a su-35.

The F-22 is a heavy 5th gen stealth fighter and the F-35 is supposed to be the cheap light fighter that the Russians are talking about in this particular contract... if their MiG entry costs 130 million US dollars it will be several times more expensive than the Su-57.

A Russian light fighter with a single engine would only be for export so it will likely cost more on the export market than domestically produced twin engined MiG-35s.

The money saved on reduced maintenance will be lost every time there is an engine failure.

The Swedish and Americans can't make cheap fighters. The Russians don't make expensive ones. The Americans don't care that their aircraft are stupidly expensive so why try to make them cheaper. The Russians wont buy super expensive planes, they expect value for money.

It was no concious decission. Gorby wanted it. Politicians declared one-engined planes unsafe to get rid of them (one-sided disarmament, to please the west).

Rafale don't have vectoring nozzles and destroyed a f-22 in dogfight.

Indian MKI couldn't engage paki jf-17 because they were outnumbered even if in 1 vs 1 su-30 would have won.

Having lots of weak useless aircraft means more manpower is wasted providing HATO with cannon fodder and would be totally pointless for Russia.

Not weak at all. Pakistani jf-17 did the work against indian su-30 and mig-29 and mirages. They can be equiped with the same weapons as biger aircraft and newest radar allows them to use their weapons at max range.

Please... France and the US make most of their money on spare parts and support contracts... and they are going to make lots of money whether the aircraft has one engine or ten.

Russia gives spare parts for free maybe ? MKI is around 70 million and it doesn't even include spare parts and other things. No cheap at all.

The F-22 is a heavy 5th gen stealth fighter and the F-35 is supposed to be the cheap light fighter that the Russians are talking about in this particular contract... if their MiG entry costs 130 million US dollars it will be several times more expensive than the Su-57.

It wasn't my point. f35 at 130 million is cheaper than f-22 wich would cost today more than 200 million. A russian single engine jet will be cheaper than su-57.

Rafale don't have vectoring nozzles and destroyed a f-22 in dogfight.

Which pretty clearly shows what shit dogfight aircraft the F-22 and F-35 probably are... they are stealth fighters that are supposed to fly high and supercruise around launching long range sniper shots at the planes of 3rd world countries and looking cool on magazine covers...

Indian MKI couldn't engage paki jf-17 because they were outnumbered even if in 1 vs 1 su-30 would have won.

A bit of a reversal isn't it... did having lots and lots of MiG-21s lead to the Arab Air Forces destroying Israel?

Is the best tactic to build more light fighter planes than your enemy can build air to air missiles?

The only single engined aircraft the Russians are looking at are all unmanned...

Not weak at all. Pakistani jf-17 did the work against indian su-30 and mig-29 and mirages. They can be equiped with the same weapons as biger aircraft and newest radar allows them to use their weapons at max range.

You can hardly base future purchases on one incident, but it is amusing you are claiming Iran should be in a very strong position in the ME region with their F-5 upgrades.... they should be cheap enough and could overwhelm any American or Israeli or Saudi force right?

Russia gives spare parts for free maybe ? MKI is around 70 million and it doesn't even include spare parts and other things. No cheap at all.

Very cheap... 8 billion dollars for 36 Rafale medium weight fighters... what is that... 222 million each... for a smaller lighter shorter ranged fighter?

It wasn't my point. f35 at 130 million is cheaper than f-22 wich would cost today more than 200 million.

An F-22 made in the US would be about 200 million because they made less than 200 of them. F-35 pretends to be much cheaper because they are spreading development costs over 3,500 aircraft that might never get built. When it was first suggested the F-22 was going to replace the F-15... they were going to make 1,500 of them.... then it got cut to 750... and then they just stopped production at about 189... if they did that to the F-35 they would be about 400 million each because they were very expensive to develop.

The Su-57 is a Russian F-22 and they are paying about 40 million each... are you trying to tell me you think a single engined similar sized version would be cheaper but just as capable?

A russian single engine jet will be cheaper than su-57.

It could possibly be cheaper... it will be much much less capable and it wont be purchased by the Russian military so it does not matter how cheap it would be.

Well Garry I will just quote what you said in the mig-29 thread you wrote in the same time as this answer :

GarryB in mig-29 thread wrote:Well actually I probably would go for the MiG... first of all it is fully multirole, but being a smaller lighter aircraft it should be rather cheaper to operate than the rather bigger Su-30.

Isos wrote:Are they stupid at mig? Every small country need a small single engine jet and they continue to develop twin engines while sukhoi takes all their client and China/USA are selling their single engine jets like little breads and taking all the clients.

Disadvantage of single engine fighter...the combustion temperature of the engine is fu*king high! The engine of the F-35 is one of the hottest engines ever built. The engine parts are difficult to spot in front direction of F-35, but from behind it radiates like the sun.

Two engines would generate enough thrust with lower temperature. Mistake of Mig-29/35...the plane is too powerful! The gap between Mig-35 and Su-57 is not really wide. So that's why they said something between Yak-130 and Mig-35 and that makes really sense.

Well Garry I will just quote what you said in the mig-29 thread you wrote in the same time as this answer :

Smaller and lighter can be achieved without taking out an engine and making it a single.

Of course if you make it too light it wont be able to do what you want it to do and you will need to spend more money on inflight refuelling aircraft because it won't be able to operate any reasonable distance with a payload of weapons.... it will be weapons and very short range or external fuel tanks and no weapons...

Mistake of Mig-29/35...the plane is too powerful! The gap between Mig-35 and Su-57 is not really wide. So that's why they said something between Yak-130 and Mig-35 and that makes really sense.

I disagree... its power to weight ratio is less than the Su-57. If you go for too light an aircraft you end up with something that is useless for the job.

The Yak-130 is far too light to be considered for anything except the light strike role they will probably be using a drone for anyway.

There is nothing you could do to a Yak-130 to make it in to a decent modern fighter that wont end up driving the price up to very similar to a medium sized fighter that could do a better job.

AESA radars are expensive... self defence avionics and DIRCMS are not cheap either and adding all these things means you will need more engine power and the airframe is not big enough for all these additions which means you have to give up fuel so it will have zero range or carry a standard payload of as many external fuel tanks as will fit.

The people saying LIFTS can double as fighters are just trying to sell more LIFTS... lead in fighter trainers are expensive so they try to justify the costs by pretending they can be fighters as well... they can't.

GarryB wrote:

Well Garry I will just quote what you said in the mig-29 thread you wrote in the same time as this answer :

Smaller and lighter can be achieved without taking out an engine and making it a single.

Of course if you make it too light it wont be able to do what you want it to do and you will need to spend more money on inflight refuelling aircraft because it won't be able to operate any reasonable distance with a payload of weapons.... it will be weapons and very short range or external fuel tanks and no weapons...

Mistake of Mig-29/35...the plane is too powerful! The gap between Mig-35 and Su-57 is not really wide. So that's why they said something between Yak-130 and Mig-35 and that makes really sense.

I disagree... its power to weight ratio is less than the Su-57. If you go for too light an aircraft you end up with something that is useless for the job.

The people saying LIFTS can double as fighters are just trying to sell more LIFTS... lead in fighter trainers are expensive so they try to justify the costs by pretending they can be fighters as well... they can't.

I would suggest to start from the available or next to be introduced engines that Russia would possiblyuse: there is a medium sized engine that sports the same tech level of Al-51?
Without this a two engined light fighter seems me a far fetch...
Next the form: canard deltas have an undeniable advantage if someone want to spare weight without compromising performances too much.

Another one to consider is avionics: wing root mounted radar is something one can put even in a light plane, so let's start with it,

Last it would be the opponents against what it would be addressed:for A2G role there will be the S-70 UCAV, so IF we look at the russian needs only I would address it toward an A2A role. Considering that future USAF fighter line would be made for the absolute most part of F-35 it wouldn't need outstanding performance to counter it.