You mean unstable, that is, with the tendency to rise the nose right? With so much weight forward it can be difficult to get this configuration since it means having the CL forward from CG but this in turn puts the wing and hence more weight forward. In other planes the rear positioned engine helps with the unstable configuration. X-32 had a forward placed CG too.
At the design stage you can set the CoG.... it is where you normally put the wing... but changing the wing sweep shifts the CoG as well.
With a sophisticated flight control system having relaxed stability can be a good thing... but it uses tiny continuous movements of the control surfaces to keep the aircraft flying nose forward... in the hover those control surfaces are decoration, so you need puffer jets in the tail, in the nose and on each wing tip to get the same measure of control of the aircraft...
1.4 tons an AL-31 (do not know weight of ancillaries) but yes, agree the engine in the end is mostly placed forward from CG too.
The exhaust of the engine is the centre of thrust or force and unless you want lifting fans or separate lifting engines then you need that centre of force (engine exhaust nozzle to be directly over the CoG for that aircraft at that weapon and fuel weight... you can shift the fuel around a bit, but you need to make sure even when there is almost no fuel left that you can balance the aircraft otherwise you can't land vertically...
This can seriously effect bring back payload capacity too.
Clearly you have to put the tail and as much structure backwards as you can. Landing gear can fold backwards instead of forward. Plus of course fuel tanks. Maybe you can tweak wings too to move weight back and lift forward.
You have to be careful of fuel... you don't want a situation where you can't use the last ton of fuel because otherwise there will be nothing to balance the weight of the nose mounted equipment.
Better to have things like batteries in the rear to counter things in the front that also never get dumped or used up.
[quote]Zircon is ship-borne and 1000km, GZUR is airborne and 1,500km . IMHO due to platform speed/service ceiling. [/qutoe]
That right there tells you they are different weapons... Iskander is a 500km range missile launched from the ground, and Kinzhal is a 2,000km range missile launched from an aircraft... being launched already up in the air and already moving at speed should increase the range by 3-4 times...
I rather suspect GZUR is a smaller weapon...
and that's how false theories build on hate and prejudice get shatter into pieces when bumping on real world's decisions
The Yak-38M had a tiny wing yet it was always a subsonic design... a thicker wing offering better lift and more internal capacity for extra fuel would have greatly improved the design with a minor decrease in flight speed...
As for weapons you must be definitely better then Yak designers. They said it was posible.
Could not start vertically? no lding? no hoovering? woow look and impossible. And enjoy
In all that video... one successful landing in a hover... the last landing is actually footage of its crash that destroyed the aircraft...
The landing you do see you can see the flame from the AB in the lifting jet motors flaring out of the bottom of their position... hardly ideal...
Dont get me wrong. MiG-35 s a good fighter just not in time...
It is designed and ready to go and is half the price of the Su-30 they are soon ending production of... the Su-35 and Su-57 will be rather more expensive and in many situations not actually more capable.
(1) hint: export and eventual stopgap if VSTOL gets delayed
So what you are saying is that they will make 6 planes now and then in 10 years time when the VSTOL is cancelled they will make more?
BTW correction for you:
(1) hint: export and eventual stopgap when the VSTOL gets delayed...
(2) hint: MiG-35 = is good but legacy tech; Su-57= promising tech
Mig-35, Su-35, and Su-57 are all the same tech level in terms of avionics...
That is why they can all operate as single seat aircraft if needed.
MiG-35 has the option of a two seat version, unlike the Sukhoi jets.
(1) MiG-29k will be rendered obsolete (by Russian statement) in second half of 2020s. Su-33 will be physically at end of service life.
Every 3-5 years they will get upgrades to keep them competitive...
(2) West have collectively much higher production capacity to build fighters in numbers.
It has countries to invade so it needs that capacity... Russian needs are defensive.
(4) F-35 will be unlikely entering any dog fighting with fighters. Why should it? there will be bunch of drones with say 15/20g overload ability and high maneuverability to do this as its wingmen.
Lets be honest here... the F-35 puts the dog in dog fight... it wont enter into a dog fight by choice... but in combat you don't always get a choice... the MiG-3 was an excellent high altitude interceptor, but on the eastern front most combat took place at medium to low altitude...
(3) It is gonna be 6gen (drone more, DEW)
So WTF do they need some VSTOL fighter for if all the future fighting will be done by drones?
Why do you need a 1.5 trillion dollar stealth aircraft to operate 6th gen drones?
(1) MiG-29SMT were for Algeria. Was it French bribed general? perhaps yes perhaps not. however problems with quality were real and last years MoD got MIC by the balls only.
Yes they were transferred to RuAF but after fixing in MiG...
The MiG-29SMTs were for Algeria and Algeria rejected them when they got an offer from Sukhoi for Flankers for the same price they were paying for their MiGs... I doubt there was anything wrong with them at all.
(2) no, Indians rejected. There were problems performance of radar + engines promised but not delivered. Well no "French bribed general" here too? I wouldn't exclude this.
Indians had no intention of accepting another Russian aircraft.... these planes were supposed to replace M2Ks and Jaguars...
That's actually very reasonable, besides this "subsonic conspiracy theory" . Tell me why subsonic would work but supersonic not?
Because subsonic aircraft can be fat and have bulges and lots of internal space for weapons and fans. With supersonic aircraft they need to have a different shape.
of course there is huge difference between cancelled and closed after building a mockup.
One requires a complete redesign, but no guaranteed funding. the second you keep all your information and work and wait.
Obviously with this amount of time passing a complete redesign will be needed anyway, but certain features can be kept because they are not proven to be fundamentally flawed.
Cool and what catapults they were tested with?
Both aircraft were vigorously tested... here is the photo evidence: