5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

GarryB wrote:

It is a very complex issue, but most engines will have a percentage chance of failure assuming there has not been a mistake in manufacture or maintenance of that engine.

Having two engines does not eliminate the chance of failure but the chance of failure of both engines at the same time is much smaller than the chance of one or the other failing.

The MiG-29 lost at the Paris Airshow was bird ingestion into one engine... you can see it flare and stall... if the aircraft was in normal level flight it would not have been a problem but because the aircraft was flying very low at a very high angle of attack at very low forward flight speed the loss of power could not be compensated for so the aircraft rolled over and crashed into the ground.

Most of the time however at normal flight speed or at altitude or both and they would not have lost a twin engined fighter but they likely would have lost a single even with extra speed and altitude.

Again no data to support your statements in statistical context, in active comabt zone, returning back to base with one engine is very unlikely. Most likely pilot will eject or shot down. Reliability is 3rd or 4th in having a twin engined plane for modern fighters. Other reasons warrant twin engine. All engines are complex, there are no simple engines that go at supersonic or even subsonic.

They can't be that bad.... China buys them for their single engined JF-14 that they sell to Pakistan... and they seem to be able to cope with reverse airflows.

In the crash I mentioned above the pilot said he restarted the engine after having a flight of birds get sucked through it, there just was not enough time to run it up to full thrust to avoid a crash.... more altitude and he would have recovered.

I do not trust numbers or tech from China or people.....personal experience in research, coauthoring publications and so on and I can tell stories. Chinese airforce is not as ready as you think...

MiG did waste their time going for the MMRCA competition because India was always going to pick the Rafale... the whole exercise was to get the French to drop the price and certainly was a waste of time for MiG, but they have been working hard and the current MiG-35 looks very good. They are in the process of introducing it into Russian AF service, and will likely take it to Syria for a test run.
Egypt seems interested and Algeria might buy some, honestly I think Iran should licence produce the MIG-29M to replace existing MiGs and F-4s and F-5s with a more modern and capable design. I would think licence production of Su-30s would be useful to replace F-14s too.

It is not mig but Russia wasted time or rather situations can be blamed due to historical events but in any case it is not India's role to go for something that is more of the same. Engine is the heart of the plane and buying another mig-29 has reasons but not the repackaged and remarketed one that is piss poorly executed. Anyone with common sense as a customer would have red flags. Iran is crafty and can't be trusted, they have proven once sanctions lifted what would happen and where they would go licking boots. Can't blame them, they have their own reasons and Russian shafted them with S-300 and nuke plant. Egypt won't buy, its a circus already as far as their force is structured. Algeria may have a chance.

So 250 million dollars per airframe for something with external weapon pylons that carries less than an F-15E... paying a premium for something doesn't make sense if you then ruin its primary feature that made it cost all that money in the first place.

Would be like spending all that money to make a supersonic Harrier replacement and then find mistakes in the design and structure mean you can't run the engine at full AB for more than 90 seconds or the tail comes off... so why bother combining the Harrier VSTOL design with the F-35 in the first place.

Getting rid of that huge fan would mean the aircraft could be shaped like a stealthy F-16 instead of a stealthy Buccaneer.

What can I say, in America it costs 25 bucks to get a haricut, it was a plane designed based on assumptions that there would not be a peer opponent, that will explain all of it and it is almost 20 years old and can still take on others. Good enough....all things have negative aspects over time. Try to be bit more objective....just like in cryptography DES was secure until it was not....same with lot of other stuff. New designs come along all the time and its natural.

Not fundamentally no... but expecting a plane developed by South Korea or India alone to be better than the height of Americas cold war prowess at aircraft design.... the South Korean model will likely be a lot of American parts cobbled together so not really SK to be fair.

Roads do not get buiilt overnight, everyone has their plan to get moving. Baby steps before running. Korea has shown wonders, Japan did and India will too over time. China is already almost there....Russia uses so much of foreign machinary including engines on their civilian planes bcos its practical while they take time to do their own. It is boring to see someone live life and get older and then carry bias to an extent of not showing even partial objectivity. Excuses for me (Russia) but not others....

Most countries don't need 5th gen fighters... it is ego and prestige for most that are trying....

Agreed....about 90% do not have the economic base to even buy much less design and develop

But that would be the problem... in the past they might promote an engineer to the job of manager... one that has good organisational skills, but these days they are not putting MBAs fresh out of uni with engineering degrees... they will be managers with degrees in management who does not understand engineering or manufacturing... to that sort of person putting a factory making parts for a plane in a poor area to create jobs where the senator in that district happens to be on the appropriations committee and who decides what gets funded at the Pentagon and what doesn't. He wont pull funding on a plane that is made in his district in an area with high unemployment.

So its funding is secure and it wont get cut or reduced funding... but what if they can't make parts well and 50% of them are duds and get thrown out or have to be remade. What if that district is miles away from where everything else is made so transporting parts and components all over the country because everything is spread out... it is bad management for a private company, but for an MIC company that relies on funding from the Pentagon it does make sense... they don't care how much the plane costs... it wont get cancelled and numbers wont get cut.

It was so successful with the C-17 the Pentagon stopped asking for new planes... they got new planes in every budget even when they didn't ask for them.

That is the definition of success for these guys... not whether the product works or is even any good.

Exactly, this is predominantly true in North America and UK. Not so much in Japan or Korea and India is impacted too....90% of Indian engineers I met are shit and Chinese too and now Americans also. It is stupidity to assume an engineer that is experienced can't handle the economics side....

US President Obama...

I know....now new one called a world leader killer....embarrasing decline in US politics and west as a whole.

The F-35 has more than 800 problems with the design of which over 10 are life threatening, it was detected by Russia using radars in Russian territory while it was flying along the border between Iraq and Iran.... it can't run its engine for more than 90 seconds in full AB or it damages its tail structure and stealth material burns off...

I am sure the Su-57 has some problems ahead of it but it appears to be significantly better designed.

I qualified my statement to "looks". I challenge any claims without verification from more than one source regardless of product's origin. My daily job to verify things....high amount of publications are unverified. Why should I trust when marketing is the only thing that is even trumping basic common sense these days.

Not a lot of competition there really.

Knowing its problems and its enormous cost all I see is a dog.

I qualified it as personal preference.

You are claiming it has to be a single engined fighter or it will be rubbish.

It will not be rubbish, but it will be more expensive, less numerous and provide a less flexible capability to the air force than it could.

F-35 was the right idea, single engine with stealth characteristics but rest all is mucked up and turned into an overly expensive problematic project. US had the engines to come up with something cheap and useful but the MIC wont be happy if they do that....single engine stealth would be better than twin in theory

You are the one claiming a MiG-31 is useless because it can only fly in a straight line... its rating for 5g is for operational use at altitude... where it spends most of its time because it can't fly at mach 2.5 plus at sea level.

Who is claiming it is useless?

It is almost useless in this era for almost all countries but Russia with its Arctic coverage has decent purpose for it.....

Again no data to support your statements in statistical context, in active comabt zone, returning back to base with one engine is very unlikely.

Have you ever heard of an aircraft called an Su-25.... after they installed an armoured plate between the engines even combat damage normally only effected one engine allowing quite a few to make it back to base.

All engines are complex, there are no simple engines that go at supersonic or even subsonic.

I disagree, a ramjet is one of the most simple designs of jet engines, but even assuming you are right would say complex does not equal expensive to buy and expensive to operate.

The more powerful engines require exotic materials and special designs, but the cost does not always justify the improvement in performance.

I do not trust numbers or tech from China or people.....personal experience in research, coauthoring publications and so on and I can tell stories. Chinese airforce is not as ready as you think...

Not sure where that came from... was talking about the JF-14 with Russian engines being sold to Pakistan as a cheap single engined fighter... if the engine was crap you wouldn't want it in a single engined fighter, and the crash I was talking about was a Russian pilot in a Russian plane at a Paris airshow.

It is not mig but Russia wasted time or rather situations can be blamed due to historical events but in any case it is not India's role to go for something that is more of the same.

The brand new fighter the US has put back into production is the F-15 which is even older than the MiG-29... do you think the F-15EX is shit as well?

Engine is the heart of the plane and buying another mig-29 has reasons but not the repackaged and remarketed one that is piss poorly executed.

The MiG-35 is as good if not better than the best model F-16 or F-18 which are both in widespread use... the former might even go back into production.

The MiG-35 was like the AK-12 or T-90AM or Su-35... it is the maximal improvement of what was already in use in an attempt to eliminate all the vices and make it as good as it can possibly be while in the background the from scratch new designed next generation replacement is in the works... in the case of the AK-12 we don't know, but for the T-90AM it is the T-14, and for the Su-35 it is the Su-57 and for the MiG-35 it is the LMFS.

I am sorry you look at the MiG-35 and see a MiG-29 but that is your problem... don't learn anything about its new features and just assume it is the same.

Russian shafted them with S-300 and nuke plant.

They have S-300, and while Germany started their nuclear power station no other country had the guts to finish them or build more for fear of US sanctions.

Egypt won't buy, its a circus already as far as their force is structured. Algeria may have a chance.

Egypt has already bought, though the newest stuff for the MiG-35 is only in service with Russia now so they have a MiG-29M.2.... the new technology from the MiG-35 can be transferred when it is ready.

Russia uses so much of foreign machinary including engines on their civilian planes bcos its practical while they take time to do their own.

Sanctions have forced Russian military to use no foreign parts or components and they are in the process of producing a complete range of engines in a range of power levels to replace existing engines and also create new aircraft to replace obsolete Ukrainian aircraft like An-12 and An-24 etc etc.

Foreign components would be a reason to reject something being used by the Russian military or government these days... no other country on the planet could apply such a policy...

It is stupidity to assume an engineer that is experienced can't handle the economics side....

The solution isn't training engineers to be managers, but to train managers to better understand the economics of what they do... perhaps make it mandatory for the manager of a military industrial complex company that makes weapons has to have children in the military, because saving money or making money should be secondary or even less of a priority to getting a good product to the troops that works and is safe.

I know....now new one called a world leader killer....embarrasing decline in US politics and west as a whole.

Not something the world can ignore... In the 1980s a certain person called George Bush snr as secretary of state said something along the lines of... I don't care what the facts are America is not to blame and I will not apologise to anyone... and they made him president...

I qualified my statement to "looks"

So faults and problems and price are unimportant... it should come down to looks.

Don't want to sound like a gay basher, but that really is gay. The value of a fighter aircraft is not how it looks... ever.

I qualified it as personal preference.

Yup, you like a weapon of war because it looks pretty to you... irrespective of all the faults and problems being found by the current users... or that it is supposed to be stealthy... that is its game changer feature over the faster cheaper longer ranged heavier payload aircraft it is replacing... it was detected from inside Russian territory flying along the border of Iraq and Iran...

Then you belong in the same Western field of the F-35 gentlemen that would be killed in combat by a missile they can't avoid and an enemy they can't hit, all that with an excellent awareness of their incoming death.

That is just sad. Situational awareness is the most critical think in air combat... even the Red Baron knew that...

If they knew the enemy was there and launching missiles they are more likely to survive than any feature of acceleration they might achieve by having a big single engine and low drag.

Scramjet + loitering, no comments.

You do understand that a scramjet is a jet engine and can be throttled from idle to full power, and that a scramjet can operate at subsonic speeds like a ramjet too...

Two ramjets on an I-15 biplane increased its flight speed by about 45km/h despite having to overcome the increased drag of the two ramjet engines... do you think they could only engage the ramjet when the I-15 biplane broke the sound barrier?

Why to put that on a cheap drone before that on an expensive fighter?

Putting it on a drone is lower cost lower risk and easier to get into use quicker.

Thrust is proportional to air density, at high altitudes that is a fraction of sea level density. Ram compression due to speed helps to compensate but to a limited degree, because of not complete pressure recovery at the intakes and other effects. The result is that the thrust at high altitude of the engines is a low fraction of that at sea level, compensated because the drag is lower and the speed higher.

And alcohol injection into the air intakes would increase density wouldn't it?

Most air intakes close up at higher speeds and only open as much as possible for takeoffs... the jet engine in the MiG-25 and MiG-31 burn fuel in subsonic airflows so the thin air is necessary to fly faster than about mach 1.3.

This is for a JT8D-17 engine:

Wow... you are showing data for a high bypass turbofan jet engine for a civilian airliner and passing that off as an example for the highest flying fastest manned aircraft in the world... that is very naughty... go to your room and think about what you have done.

Very dishonest.

Turbojets have different performance characteristics, which is why they are often used for very fast and high altitude aircraft.

Why is it going to be more expensive? You keep going in circles but not answering. What is that ultraexpensive ingredient that makes manned fighters expensive? You compare PoS UAV with ridiculous avionics, speed, payload and capabilities with a supersonic fighter that carries several tonnes of complex weapons and is multirole, and conclude the cost problem is the pilot. It is surreal...

Have already told you a fighter drone could be as simple as an AAM or SAM.

An ultra expensive missile with ridiculous persistence...

Why ultra expensive... scramjet engines are relatively simple... no fan blades or shaft drives, no gears...

That thing that does not exist, understood

It makes more sense making missiles smarter and more dangerous than making unmanned fighters based on fighters.

It will not be rubbish, but it will be more expensive, less numerous and provide a less flexible capability to the air force than it could.

You haven't offered any proof as to why it will be more expensive a lighter fighter might require numbers to achieve goals fewer heavier aircraft could achieve.

A decent medium fighter is more value for money than a plane that is too light and useless.

Using your logic and since medium is better because can carry more payload and has longer range, then medium is shit compared to heavy and should also not be pursued. Not commenting further on the above because it does not even try to understand my position and ignores a novel worth of discussion

Using my logic light might be a little cheaper but not half the price and when you use twice as many or more to get the job done then it isn't cheaper at all.

The medium offers a good fraction of the performance of the heavier types, while being cheaper to buy and to operate... so they can operate them in larger numbers.

Most of the time the heavy fighter will be overkill, while the medium just right and the light needing big external tanks and a couple of planes where one medium would do.

That explains the disconnect between you knowing the mechanics but defending such misconceptions about lift, tuning and overload. Pushing a bar is one thing, understanding what is happening in physical terms is another one.

Of course... I have flown a plane so I think the rear of the plane is full of pixies and they make the plane move with magic.

Who is claiming it is useless?

A plane flying at mach 2.8 will be flying in a very straight line if it can't turn...

F-35 was the right idea, single engine with stealth characteristics but rest all is mucked up and turned into an overly expensive problematic project. US had the engines to come up with something cheap and useful but the MIC wont be happy if they do that....single engine stealth would be better than twin in theory

They should have made two completely different planes... one a Yak-141 like stealthy VSTOL fighter much like the F-35, and the mass produced fighter should have been a stealthy F-16 and it would have been very good, but likely still expensive.

It is almost useless in this era for almost all countries but Russia with its Arctic coverage has decent purpose for it.....

It is the most potent and effective interceptor available today bar none.

Few other aircraft go supersonic for very long let alone fly great distances at more than Mach 2.4.

And no aircraft has longer ranged air to air missiles either.

And its ability in the MiG-31K model to carry a 2,000km range Mach 9 anti ship missile is unique as well...

GarryB wrote:

Have you ever heard of an aircraft called an Su-25.... after they installed an armoured plate between the engines even combat damage normally only effected one engine allowing quite a few to make it back to base.

That has nothing to do with fighters in general or engine reliability on its own. That just protects from small arms not missles.....plenty were shot down still....those are slow moving and their role in combat is not in contested air space. They wont last a minute against a fighter even of 2 generations back. I will grant you that twin engines may run at lower core sustained temperature compared to single engine and therefore may have some positive benefits but i have not read anythign that it saves a lot practically speaking.

I disagree, a ramjet is one of the most simple designs of jet engines, but even assuming you are right would say complex does not equal expensive to buy and expensive to operate.

The more powerful engines require exotic materials and special designs, but the cost does not always justify the improvement in performance.

ya, they are simple only in writing on a forum. How many have you developed and how many countries develop them?

Not sure where that came from... was talking about the JF-14 with Russian engines being sold to Pakistan as a cheap single engined fighter... if the engine was crap you wouldn't want it in a single engined fighter, and the crash I was talking about was a Russian pilot in a Russian plane at a Paris airshow.

You should read more about and their J planes combat record if there is one. I already said that single engine vs twin engine may matter in training and non combat scenarios as far reliability comes into play.

The brand new fighter the US has put back into production is the F-15 which is even older than the MiG-29... do you think the F-15EX is shit as well?

India is not buying it.So irrelevant whether they go back to piston engine or 10th gen super duper startrek engine

The MiG-35 is as good if not better than the best model F-16 or F-18 which are both in widespread use... the former might even go back into production.

The MiG-35 was like the AK-12 or T-90AM or Su-35... it is the maximal improvement of what was already in use in an attempt to eliminate all the vices and make it as good as it can possibly be while in the background the from scratch new designed next generation replacement is in the works... in the case of the AK-12 we don't know, but for the T-90AM it is the T-14, and for the Su-35 it is the Su-57 and for the MiG-35 it is the LMFS.

I am sorry you look at the MiG-35 and see a MiG-29 but that is your problem... don't learn anything about its new features and just assume it is the same.

Evidence is in front of you, a plane that has not seen its logical adoption for this long with nothing more compared to what is already in market and not even taken seriously in home market does not derserve benefit of doubt from customer. Would you make an individual purchase like that for any product if you have finite money to spend on something? Be rational...

They have S-300, and while Germany started their nuclear power station no other country had the guts to finish them or build more for fear of US sanctions.

We all know the drama that happened...Russia is no soviet union when it comes to guts or stupidity. Russia is Russia and they navigate based on their interests and they make mistakes like every one else except in your own mind where you think there is some grand master strategy behind every restraint and mistake.

Egypt has already bought, though the newest stuff for the MiG-35 is only in service with Russia now so they have a MiG-29M.2.... the new technology from the MiG-35 can be transferred when it is ready.

Everyone has a potential...potential is just that. We are talking 35 not 29. Problem with these countries is they get a new dictator at any time....not very reliable.

Sanctions have forced Russian military to use no foreign parts or components and they are in the process of producing a complete range of engines in a range of power levels to replace existing engines and also create new aircraft to replace obsolete Ukrainian aircraft like An-12 and An-24 etc etc.

Foreign components would be a reason to reject something being used by the Russian military or government these days... no other country on the planet could apply such a policy...

This sounds ridiculous, if Russia has good relations then its ok I guess like they did not know who they were dealing with on the other side Germany, US and Canada and so on. But Korea or India as an American ally should somehow not use foreign componentry?

The solution isn't training engineers to be managers, but to train managers to better understand the economics of what they do... perhaps make it mandatory for the manager of a military industrial complex company that makes weapons has to have children in the military, because saving money or making money should be secondary or even less of a priority to getting a good product to the troops that works and is safe.

You can't train a general that is not a soldier. They are called back room strategists nothign more and wont last a 2nd on the battle field....managers are over stepping and everyone that worked in any special field these days know it.

I qualified my statement to "looks"

There are superficial ways to talk about things....you don't go to a prostitute and talk about your religious morals...you can do that too. Looks are looks and I applied that constraint in my statement.

Yup, you like a weapon of war because it looks pretty to you... irrespective of all the faults and problems being found by the current users... or that it is supposed to be stealthy... that is its game changer feature over the faster cheaper longer ranged heavier payload aircraft it is replacing... it was detected from inside Russian territory flying along the border of Iraq and Iran...

Chill out, sure I can track it from my phone.....I don't beleive claims that easily whether its from my side or the other without some evidence....stealth is real and detection is also real...thats how military leads are....one has an edge momentarily until someone else creates an antidote.

They should have made two completely different planes... one a Yak-141 like stealthy VSTOL fighter much like the F-35, and the mass produced fighter should have been a stealthy F-16 and it would have been very good, but likely still expensive.

Agreed, they should have iterated before they went with that one for all idea. Regardless F-35 was a good idea if done correctly with proper wisdom check.

It is the most potent and effective interceptor available today bar none.

Few other aircraft go supersonic for very long let alone fly great distances at more than Mach 2.4.

And no aircraft has longer ranged air to air missiles either.

And its ability in the MiG-31K model to carry a 2,000km range Mach 9 anti ship missile is unique as well...

It is less relevant now and even more so for most countries. Russia has a purpose for it as a country that is usually defense oriented and its geography also can use that effectively.

What is sad is doing the silly reductionism of saying that SA is important while airframes and kinematics are secondary, because "missiles are faster", and forgetting that the enemy is not only going to have a better airframe but also as good as or even better SA.

You are joking right?

Knowing where the enemy is is the most critical thing in air combat, their ability to turn better than you means nothing if you can sneak around behind them and shoot them down before they even know you are there... if you don't know a missile is on its way and approaching you you are at an enormous disadvantage... as you point out if you are flying very fast you must be at altitude which limits your ability to manouver because a 9g turn at high speed is not a hard turn in degrees per second, so while you cover distance the shift in position is not enormous unless you are hypersonic and able to pull enormous g for long periods.

If you are going slow I believe you mentioned the chance of a bi plane evading a supersonic plane or therefore also a supersonic missile... a biplane can't pull high gs... it simply isn't fast enough or strong enough, but with a mach 5 missile it wont matter anyway.

So when they hunt you down with faster, longer ranged planes with more manouverability, service ceiling and payload, you will be aware of the situation but not able to do anything to change it.

What makes you think the faster plane always wins, or the aircraft with the most payload or flys the highest... you already claim planes can turn at altitude, and an aircrafts flight range is not very relevant either.

If you are aware that bigger heavier longer ranged planes are coming, or conversely smaller lighter more manouverable planes are coming then you obviously position yourself to launch attacks on them without getting into a close combat dogfight with a smaller lighter more manouverable plane.

The point is that without SA those better planes will launch an attack you don't know is coming and you are dead before any dogfight can start.

It is the basis of western superiority against third world countries... western jamming and western AWACS means the western aircraft know where everything is without giving away their location. They often have a numbers advantage too so a flight of planes can distract the enemy while the AWACS aircraft vector fighters around behind them and launch a surprise attack from behind... the third world country pilots never know what hits them because their own radar has either been attacked and destroyed or is being jammed... or communications is jammed which means you are operating your own radar to see what is happening so in addition to AWACS instructions the attacking western fighters can locate the target from its radar emissions, but the reverse is not true.

Situations where smaller lighter more manouverable fighters have shocked the pilots of bigger heavier planes... Vietnam springs to mind with bit powerful heavy F-4 phantoms able to carry lots of AAMs at once including BVR missiles, came up against MiG-17 and MiG-19 and MiG-21s in combat... the thing is that despite being smaller and lighter and more nimble the F-4s managed to shoot down some planes... and it wasn't because SPARROW was amazing... it wasn't.

Move the same fight to now and the Phantoms would likely do much better because they could use the increased range and performance of AMRAAM to get some kills before the merge... the main factor being previously the BVR missile was for use against bombers and planes that were not manouvering, but modern BVR missiles are for everything... an AMRAAM at medium to short range is more effective than short range missiles because it has more energy and bigger warheads... but neither is perfect.

Scramjet per definition is an engine that needs supersonic compression.

To operate as a scramjet, but a scramjet is a ramjet that can burn fuel at supersonic speeds... I rather doubt there would be enough internal space for rocket fuel to get a Zircon supersonic by the time the ramjet kicks in, very simply because ramjet fuel gives more energy and thrust than the solid rocket motor fuel...

A scramjet that does not need to slow the airflow through the combustion section to subsonic speeds should be able to generate enormous thrust at altitude and speed... which is why it can go so fast and so high.

Flying at such speeds burns fuel orders of magnitude faster.

I am not saying it would be fuel efficient, and it would be pointless for a missile that requires enormous range for standoff use like an anti carrier missile, but for an air to air missile it would be fine to shorten range a bit.

No, reduce temperature to preserve the engine

They used alcohol injection on the Tu- drone that used the MiG-25s engine... why would they care about engine life on a drone like that?

It is about speed attainable.

Turbojets are superior for high speed flight, but that diagram says nothing about speed. Thrust dependency with air density follows essentially the same mechanism for any turbomachinery.

Turbofans get most of their thrust by bypass air... so when the air is thin they lose most of their thrust which your chart shows rather clearly... and also explains why airliners never fly above about 10-12km altitude.

Turbojets on the other hand like very cold air coming in the intake and the high horizontal speed makes up for the low airpressure, but even a turbojet would choke on supersonic airflow through the combustion section...

All your opinion and little else.

Are you expecting me to post your opinion?

That has nothing to do with fighters in general or engine reliability on its own.

Survivability in combat is as important as cost of use... it makes no sense having a plane that is cheap to operate in peace time that just gets shot down easily in combat.

In the late 1980s there was a plan to replace the A-10 because the supersonic fighter jocks didn't like it. They wanted a ground attack modification of the F-16 to replace it called the A-16, and to retain performance it had no armour... it had payload and speed, but for ground attack speed is counterproductive.

It was not put into production because it was too fragile, so combat survivability is certainly an issue.

That just protects from small arms not missles.....plenty were shot down still....those are slow moving and their role in combat is not in contested air space.

Plenty were shot down, but in your professional view... what damaged these aircraft.... they clearly managed to land again because the damage suggests a missile hit but not a crash afterwards...







And there are similar pictures of A-10s getting engines damaged to the point of them failing but have clearly landed anyway...

They wont last a minute against a fighter even of 2 generations back.

I appreciate what you are trying to say, but the Su-25 is probably a 3rd gen fighterbomber, and can shoot down enemy aircraft as it normally carries an air to air weapon... previously R-60MKs which were quite effective little missiles, but these days R-73s which are old but as good as it needs for dealing with enemy aircraft and helicopters.

therefore may have some positive benefits but i have not read anythign that it saves a lot practically speaking.

And yet twin engined aircraft exist, so there must be some positive benefits... there are very few four engined fighters and very few three engined fighters and very few five engined fighters, yet there are probably more twin engined fighters than singles.

The fact that we are not sure of the reasons for a twin should not be dismissed because there are enough twin engined aircraft out there to suggest they are pretty important reasons.

ya, they are simple only in writing on a forum. How many have you developed and how many countries develop them?

I am saying the are conceptually simple... more countries could make ramjets than could make any other form of jet engine because it has no shafts and no blades or disks... it is essentially a hollow tube that gets narrow to compress incoming air... fuel is added and burned and thrust is created. A ramjet is a very simple engine... scramjets are much more difficult in terms of design and materials, but they are still tubes where air is sucked in and compressed and fuel is added and burned... but it needs special design and materials and some secret sauce to get the fuel to burn at supersonic speeds with stability.

You should read more about and their J planes combat record if there is one. I already said that single engine vs twin engine may matter in training and non combat scenarios as far reliability comes into play.

It is designed to be a super cheap upgrade of a MiG-21... I would not expect it to be what an F-35 was supposed to be, but they have experience with that jet engine and they have chosen to use it in a single engined fighter... and another country has agreed to buy it.

If the engine was unreliable it would be an expensive to operate aircraft because of all the crashes, but that does not seem to be the case.

India is not buying it.So irrelevant whether they go back to piston engine or 10th gen super duper startrek engine

But India is still buying batches of MiG-29s... the old model ones with upgrades. Your claim is that the MiG-35 is no better than a MiG-29 you already have... if India keeps on buying MiG-29s with upgrades then buying the brand new model with its problems eliminated would make sense wouldn't it... despite you being dead against it.

The new carrier India is building are too small for American or French fighters to operate from unless you spend a few billion and buy catapults for them... or tens of billions and develop EMALS cats for them, so despite what India wants they might end up ordering more MiG-29KRs anyway.

Unless they want a Ford equivalent... (helicopter carrier).

Evidence is in front of you, a plane that has not seen its logical adoption for this long with nothing more compared to what is already in market and not even taken seriously in home market does not derserve benefit of doubt from customer. Would you make an individual purchase like that for any product if you have finite money to spend on something? Be rational...

The Russians had the choice of buying the new MiG-29M with the same new airframe but not state of the art components, or they could wait till the MiG-35 is ready with DAS and AESA radar and all sorts of flash things... they chose the latter, which meant delaying its introduction, it is still in the process of the new planes being tested, and performance confirmed before they make a large serial order.

The Russians work different from the Americans, they test their products and try to get them up to spec before handing them over to the customer... the Americans seem to have embraced beta testing for their customers... you would think that would earn reduced prices, but no...

There can still be problems with Russian products simply because of all the potential variables but they eliminate the bugs they can find before handing it over to the customer , which I think is sensible.

I understand Americans wanting to get stuff out now so they can make some money and charge extra for fixing problems they should have found and fixed themselves.

I don't understand the customers wanting delivery of something that does not work out of the box.

I don't have a lot of money, which is why I never buy a Microsoft operating system until at least Service Pack 3 is out.

Currently I run a computer on XP and a computer on a very old linux OS.

We all know the drama that happened...Russia is no soviet union when it comes to guts or stupidity. Russia is Russia and they navigate based on their interests and they make mistakes like every one else except in your own mind where you think there is some grand master strategy behind every restraint and mistake.

They are not and have never claimed to be the worlds policeman. Without them Iran would not have S-300 and would be a lot weaker to threats by the US and Israel, and there would be no nuclear power generation in their country.

Whether they are using it to hide a bomb making capacity or not is another matter but the actions of Israel and the west mean she has more to gain by having nuclear weapons than by not having them and being open to attack without the ability to retaliate effectively.

Everyone has a potential...potential is just that. We are talking 35 not 29. Problem with these countries is they get a new dictator at any time....not very reliable.

According to the west Putin is a dictator... why should Russia care about how a country puts its leadership in power. The real power behind any country is its most wealthy... and no election will shift them from "power".

The Egyptians wanted MiG-35s but they are not ready for export, so they got MiG-29Ms with some of the features of the MiG-35 that are ready and will likely be upgraded to MiG-35 when the AESA radar is ready likely amongst other things that might not be ready for export.

This sounds ridiculous, if Russia has good relations then its ok I guess like they did not know who they were dealing with on the other side Germany, US and Canada and so on. But Korea or India as an American ally should somehow not use foreign componentry?

Venezuela didn't get F-16s because it was pro Cuba or anti US... Turkey isn't allowed the F-35s they paid for and were going to make the wings for... Saddam was Americas best friend before they turned on him... he supplied cheap energy to the US in the 1970s when many other OPEC members wouldn't.... and then in the 1980s he became their best friend by fighting the Iranians who had recently kicked the CIA out of the country.
Much of the components the US uses are made in China.... ironically.

Did you not notice the 3M face masks needed for Covid were produced by US company 3M, but actually made in China so Americans actually went to China and made sure shipments of 3M masks went to the US instead of other countries that had ordered them and paid for them before the US did...

Buy all means buy them from the west, but don't expect to always be able to get them... you just need to do something wrong... Saddam invaded Kuwaite and therefore risked an oil monopoly... imagine if he invaded Saudi Arabia and declared himself leader of the arab world... we can see the houthies ripping through the best Saudi Arabia can afford so he probable could have done it easily at the time despite on paper being more powerful than his forces.

Turkey stopped being hostile to Russia and bought S-400 missiles... Venezuela simply voted in socalist leaders... Chavez and then Maduro, who tried to help the poor with cheap housing and improve life for them... the rich didn't like wasting money on people and with the US help tried to overthrow them, but the majority are poor so the rich can hire some mercs but against the majority of the population there is little they could do. One American plan was to raid a Venezuelan army base and break out prisoners in a nearby prison and arm them with the army weapons... peace loving democracy promoters... but it was never about the suffering of the venezuelan people and more about the enormous amount of estimated oil reserves in the area....

You can't train a general that is not a soldier.

If all managers have to be engineers first the world is in trouble because most governments give departments and jobs to politicians in terms of prestige rather than competence or experience.

A person running the accounts at a shipping company does not need to know how to wield or move shipping or to have ever been a sailor.

At certain ranks in the military the job is more about administration than shooting people so if you haven't crawled through the mud with a rifle isn't critical.

Obviously managing a group of people in a job you have to understand the job, but you don't need to have done it... this is where communication skills are important, which is rather more important for a manager than an engineer.

When I was at university I had several lecturers that were terrible at communication. Their skills were computer programming and they were amazing... if you talked to them one on one they were brilliant... they would make excellent workmates, but they were not good teachers and their interpersonal skills were quite weak... they were actually a bit shy... but very clever. Almost like they expected everyone to be a bully and force them to do their homework for them...

They are called back room strategists nothign more and wont last a 2nd on the battle field....managers are over stepping and everyone that worked in any special field these days know it.

I think with management being a separate skill and field they have become a bunch of yes men within their branch and simply wont listen to anyone in the field despite the fact that they should be listening to the people who work for them because their experience is more valuable than anything they learned on a management course.

All you can really get from a management course is communication and motivation skills, which are important, but when you get to your job the learning starts again, because of all the team cliches... everyone has to work together or you end up going in circles wasting effort and energy.

There are superficial ways to talk about things....you don't go to a prostitute and talk about your religious morals...you can do that too

You would be surprised how many men just want to talk... apparently...

It is cheaper than a psychiatrist or a lawyer these days...

There are superficial ways to talk about things....you don't go to a prostitute and talk about your religious morals...you can do that too. Looks are looks and I applied that constraint in my statement.

Can't remember the last time I saw the results of a government evaluation of a group of aircraft where they said these planes are all very very similar... good in some areas and worse in others... so we picked the prettiest one...

I mean I have heard the joke about the Batchelor with three women wanting to marry him... he gave $10K to each of them and so the first got a full makeover and new clothes to look pretty for him, the second took the money and bought him all sorts of stuff she knew he liked, like a motorbike and helmet and leathers, and the third one took the money and invested it and tripled his money in two weeks... gave him back $20K and kept $20K for herself.

So he thought about it, weighing up each gesture and response and the morality and ethics and idea behind each response from each woman... and then he married the one with the biggest tits.

Chill out, sure I can track it from my phone.....I don't beleive claims that easily whether its from my side or the other without some evidence....stealth is real and detection is also real...thats how military leads are....one has an edge momentarily until someone else creates an antidote.

The thing is when one side already has the antidote to something the US is paying 1.5 trillion to put into service and expects to be the main body of their future air fleet whose core feature is invisibility at a point where Russia can warn Iran of these aircraft operating near Iranian borders and they have maybe 500 of the 3,500 they were going to make produced...

The original Soviet plan was to produce 350 Whiskey SSKs... they were good subs but new technology meant the production run was dramatically cut... same thing happened to the F-22. The Commanche stealth helicopter didn't even make it into service... it is a lot of money to spend on something that wont now work as intended... but they continue to make F-35 because there was no plan B.

Think of the doo doo they would be in if they made stuff solely for looking cool...

Agreed, they should have iterated before they went with that one for all idea. Regardless F-35 was a good idea if done correctly with proper wisdom check.

But the problem went deeper than that... another part of the F-35s problem is their distributed development and production paradigm to make it cancel proof... it works but destroys efficiency and cost effectiveness completely... the C-17 didn't need to cost that much, and the F-35 didn't need to cost that much either... some of the time and effort in logistics they spent on the spread out F-35 production could have been spent fixing problems and just making the plane better... but no one will lose their job... America can afford it... because they are so far in the lead... but are they?

Printing money solves the cost issue for America... but not for Americas allies who suffer and will struggle to keep these aircraft in service... the UK announced it costs 90K British pounds per hour to keep their F-35s flying... that is more than the B-2 costs... a big heavy strategic bomber...

The UK can't afford to give their healthcare workers a pay raise of more than 1%... considering many of the workers that helped them out with Covid were students and retirees that probably weren't paid anyway, that is an insult, but they have to pay 90K pounds per hour to fly some planes the Russians really probably are not afraid of.

At least they wont have any problems meeting US demands to spend more than 2% GDP on weapons to meet their commitments to HATO.

They wont replace their tanks, but they will have more Tridents...

It is less relevant now and even more so for most countries.

It is the most important aircraft in Russia in terms of air defence, and naval defence.

It can shoot down air targets at distances of more than 300km and sink US carriers from 2,000km with reasonable confidence... but of course most other countries are not challenged by the US, or could not expect to survive the retaliation of sinking an attacking US carrier group.

Russia has a purpose for it as a country that is usually defense oriented and its geography also can use that effectively.

Most countries outside of the west are defence oriented...

Survivability in combat is as important as cost of use... it makes no sense having a plane that is cheap to operate in peace time that just gets shot down easily in combat.

In the late 1980s there was a plan to replace the A-10 because the supersonic fighter jocks didn't like it. They wanted a ground attack modification of the F-16 to replace it called the A-16, and to retain performance it had no armour... it had payload and speed, but for ground attack speed is counterproductive.

It was not put into production because it was too fragile, so combat survivability is certainly an issue.

Plenty were shot down, but in your professional view... what damaged these aircraft.... they clearly managed to land again because the damage suggests a missile hit but not a crash afterwards...

Not sure what armor plating has to do with fighter engine reliability.....it is external to engine. Flares can protect a plane too in some cases, I am not sure why you are mixing the issues. a-10 or su-25 won't last in the airspace with a capable enemy not some rag tag towel heads or goat fuckers in middle east or Afghanistan. As recent as Syria, couple of them were lost to chinese or Russian manpad? What you are saying is not the topic....

And there are similar pictures of A-10s getting engines damaged to the point of them failing but have clearly landed anyway...

That is because US planes, guts, deterrence and whole strategy is better and therefore you wont see them shot down a whole lot by rag tags plus they own the rag tags in some cases. I will agree, it is over stretched and is not the same anymore...neither is its politics at home. Do not respond with your moral hierocracy here....not interested and its a separate topic if you try to justify angels and demons of the world.

I appreciate what you are trying to say, but the Su-25 is probably a 3rd gen fighterbomber, and can shoot down enemy aircraft as it normally carries an air to air weapon... previously R-60MKs which were quite effective little missiles, but these days R-73s which are old but as good as it needs for dealing with enemy aircraft and helicopters.

No it can't and neither does it have proper radar against any fighter. A-10 and su25 are products of different era and won't have a great role in this era and especially in contested space against even 3rd rated formal airforce unless like US they pulverize first and then bring them in. Close combat planes are therefore not seen in many countries arsenal for a reason and have no like to like replacement in US or Russia. Stick to primary topic please...

And yet twin engined aircraft exist, so there must be some positive benefits... there are very few four engined fighters and very few three engined fighters and very few five engined fighters, yet there are probably more twin engined fighters than singles.

The fact that we are not sure of the reasons for a twin should not be dismissed because there are enough twin engined aircraft out there to suggest they are pretty important reasons.

I already gave you my opinions why twin engines are used more and more vs single engines. Twin engine is more practical as the fighters become more heavy among other things and engines cost money to proportionately get the required power from just a single engine....no one puts that much money into research when you can use two single engines to get the power. F-35 engine is as good as it gets from a single engine point of view for now until new mechanisms are researched and new materials come along.....when did I dismiss twin engine? You are confused by disagreeing with yourself sometimes....for military aircraft twin is all that is genrally necessary unless its a bomber category of intercontinental range or theater level.

I am saying the are conceptually simple... more countries could make ramjets than could make any other form of jet engine because it has no shafts and no blades or disks... it is essentially a hollow tube that gets narrow to compress incoming air... fuel is added and burned and thrust is created. A ramjet is a very simple engine... scramjets are much more difficult in terms of design and materials, but they are still tubes where air is sucked in and compressed and fuel is added and burned... but it needs special design and materials and some secret sauce to get the fuel to burn at supersonic speeds with stability.

Another tangent to the topic, ramjets are not typically thought of when thinking about airplanes. You can fig out why as you seem to know how they work and I do not have to explain....ramjet's may be conceptually easy to understand but that does not mean one can build a quality one. Lot of things are conceptually simple but yet only few are able to do that....

It is designed to be a super cheap upgrade of a MiG-21... I would not expect it to be what an F-35 was supposed to be, but they have experience with that jet engine and they have chosen to use it in a single engined fighter... and another country has agreed to buy it.

If the engine was unreliable it would be an expensive to operate aircraft because of all the crashes, but that does not seem to be the case.

Talk is those planes are ground queens in PAF....no comparison to 21 which is still a good interceptor as far as speed and other aspects are concerned but its radar and other things are way past. Let the Chinese engines set some record first then we can objectively discuss....

But India is still buying batches of MiG-29s... the old model ones with upgrades. Your claim is that the MiG-35 is no better than a MiG-29 you already have... if India keeps on buying MiG-29s with upgrades then buying the brand new model with its problems eliminated would make sense wouldn't it... despite you being dead against it.

The new carrier India is building are too small for American or French fighters to operate from unless you spend a few billion and buy catapults for them... or tens of billions and develop EMALS cats for them, so despite what India wants they might end up ordering more MiG-29KRs anyway.

Unless they want a Ford equivalent... (helicopter carrier).

India is buying mig-29 for 2 reasons, they have infrastructure and base logistics and the timing. Their fleet was depleted by the lack of action from previous govt's and war is banging on the door. I already said carriers are based on soviet blue print and until Tejas naval comes along, mig-29k are the top candidate. Nothing to do with mig-35 purchase in place of Rafale and has nothing to do with this topic.

The Russians had the choice of buying the new MiG-29M with the same new airframe but not state of the art components, or they could wait till the MiG-35 is ready with DAS and AESA radar and all sorts of flash things... they chose the latter, which meant delaying its introduction, it is still in the process of the new planes being tested, and performance confirmed before they make a large serial order.

The Russians work different from the Americans, they test their products and try to get them up to spec before handing them over to the customer... the Americans seem to have embraced beta testing for their customers... you would think that would earn reduced prices,  but no...

There can still be problems with Russian products simply because of all the potential variables but they eliminate the bugs they can find before handing it over to the customer , which I think is sensible.

I understand Americans wanting to get stuff out now so they can make some money and charge extra for fixing problems they should have found and fixed themselves.

I don't understand the customers wanting delivery of something that does not work out of the box.

I don't have a lot of money, which is why I never buy a Microsoft operating system until at least Service Pack 3 is out.

Currently I run a computer on XP and a computer on a very old linux OS.

We can talk when Russia figures out its sales and product strategy and lets not blame customer for the lack of it. No need to draw more parallel lines here on that topic.
I have money and I still use Linux and only Linux except my old laptop had Windows which i bought at company auction for less than $200 but thats years old which I occasionally use. I build my own servers. Different reasons for different people, they don't have to make sense for us all the time.

They are not and have never claimed to be the worlds policeman. Without them Iran would not have S-300 and would be a lot weaker to threats by the US and Israel, and there would be no nuclear power generation in their country.
Whether they are using it to hide a bomb making capacity or not is another matter but the actions of Israel and the west mean she has more to gain by having nuclear weapons than by not having them and being open to attack without the ability to retaliate effectively.

Yet Iran can't wait to lick west's boots. Russia has abided by west's sanctions and everyone knows it until it gets to a point where it has no option to push its interests. It is not the country that purely acts on morals and I don''t expect it, only fools think like that. Real world is different...morals at state level are different from moral's at individual level.

According to the west Putin is a dictator... why should Russia care about how a country puts its leadership in power. The real power behind any country is its most wealthy... and no election will shift them from "power".

The Egyptians wanted MiG-35s but they are not ready for export, so they got MiG-29Ms with some of the features of the MiG-35 that are ready and will likely be upgraded to MiG-35 when the AESA radar is ready likely amongst other things that might not be ready for export.

I don't really care on what type of govt someone has...my point was Egypt has a track record of shafting its supporter or ally based on these changes.

Venezuela didn't get F-16s because it was pro Cuba or anti US... Turkey isn't allowed the F-35s they paid for and were going to make the wings for... Saddam was Americas best friend before they turned on him... he supplied cheap energy to the US in the 1970s when many other OPEC members wouldn't.... and then in the 1980s he became their best friend by fighting the Iranians who had recently kicked the CIA out of the country.
Much of the components the US uses are made in China.... ironically.

Did you not notice the 3M face masks needed for Covid were produced by US company 3M, but actually made in China so Americans actually went to China and made sure shipments of 3M masks went to the US instead of other countries that had ordered them and paid for them before the US did...

Buy all means buy them from the west, but don't expect to always be able to get them... you just need to do something wrong... Saddam invaded Kuwaite and therefore risked an oil monopoly... imagine if he invaded Saudi Arabia and declared himself leader of the arab world... we can see the houthies ripping through the best Saudi Arabia can afford so he probable could have done it easily at the time despite on paper being more powerful than his forces.

Turkey stopped being hostile to Russia and bought S-400 missiles... Venezuela simply voted in socalist leaders... Chavez and then Maduro, who tried to help the poor with cheap housing and improve life for them... the rich didn't like wasting money on people and with the US help tried to overthrow them, but the majority are poor so the rich can hire some mercs but against the majority of the population there is little they could do. One American plan was to raid a Venezuelan army base and break out prisoners in a nearby prison and arm them with the army weapons... peace loving democracy promoters... but it was never about the suffering of the venezuelan people and more about the enormous amount of estimated oil reserves in the area....

This has nothing to do with the point....your trick to sideline and offer nothing relevant.

If all managers have to be engineers first the world is in trouble because most governments give departments and jobs to politicians in terms of prestige rather than competence or experience.

A person running the accounts at a shipping company does not need to know how to wield or move shipping or to have ever been a sailor.

At certain ranks in the military the job is more about administration than shooting people so if you haven't crawled through the mud with a rifle isn't critical.

Obviously managing a group of people in a job you have to understand the job, but you don't need to have done it... this is where communication skills are important, which is rather more important for a manager than an engineer.

When I was at university I had several lecturers that were terrible at communication. Their skills were computer programming and they were amazing... if you talked to them one on one they were brilliant... they would make excellent workmates, but they were not good teachers and their interpersonal skills were quite weak... they were actually a bit shy... but very clever. Almost like they expected everyone to be a bully and force them to do their homework for them...

That is how it started and it is on the extreme side now where literally dumb managers shit the engineers that do the work. Every engineering discipline has an economics course work that specifically deals with project management. Most small companies are good because their management typically are experienced and lot of inventions in Japan come from small workshops. Managers have a place but it's just taken over by dumb ones more and more...

I think with management being a separate skill and field they have become a bunch of yes men within their branch and simply wont listen to anyone in the field despite the fact that they should be listening to the people who work for them because their experience is more valuable than anything they learned on a management course.

All you can really get from a management course is communication and motivation skills, which are important, but when you get to your job the learning starts again, because of all the team cliches... everyone has to work together or you end up going in circles wasting effort and energy.

Yes and nothing to add here

You would be surprised how many men just want to talk... apparently...

It is cheaper than a psychiatrist or a lawyer these days...  

There are superficial ways to talk about things....you don't go to a prostitute and talk about your religious morals...you can do that too. Looks are looks and I applied that constraint in my statement.
Can't remember the last time I saw the results of a government evaluation of a group of aircraft where they said these planes are all very very similar... good in some areas and worse in others... so we picked the prettiest one...

I mean I have heard the joke about the Batchelor with three women wanting to marry him... he gave $10K to each of them and so the first got a full makeover and new clothes to look pretty for him, the second took the money and bought him all sorts of stuff she knew he liked, like a motorbike and helmet and leathers, and the third one took the money and invested it and tripled his money in two weeks... gave him back $20K and kept $20K for herself.

So he thought about it, weighing up each gesture and response and the morality and ethics and idea behind each response from each woman... and then he married the one with the biggest tits.

if I wanted to discuss success criteria of product based on full spectrum then I would not qualify it the way I did....rest is your obsession to fill the space and add words that were not said or not trying to understand the context.

Nothing more here to say....

The thing is when one side already has the antidote to something the US is paying 1.5 trillion to put into service and expects to be the main body of their future air fleet whose core feature is invisibility at a point where Russia can warn Iran of these aircraft operating near Iranian borders and they have maybe 500 of the 3,500 they were going to make produced...

The original Soviet plan was to produce 350 Whiskey SSKs... they were good subs but new technology meant the production run was dramatically cut... same thing happened to the F-22. The Commanche stealth helicopter didn't even make it into service... it is a lot of money to spend on something that wont now work as intended... but they continue to make F-35 because there was no plan B.

Think of the doo doo they would be in if they made stuff solely for looking cool...

Then why are they designing stealth on ships or su-57 if its such a no brainer....every problem has an optimization profile that is considered relevant in its domain. Nothing to add here....just US could not use its magical stealth F-22 or 35 to take out any capable opponent, I do not expect Russian out of the world AD to ground opponents.
We can wait for future to see some real data beyoind claims on both sides...

But the problem went deeper than that... another part of the F-35s problem is their distributed development and production paradigm to make it cancel proof... it works but destroys efficiency and cost effectiveness completely... the C-17 didn't need to cost that much, and the F-35 didn't need to cost that much either... some of the time and effort in logistics they spent on the spread out F-35 production could have been spent fixing problems and just making the plane better... but no one will lose their job... America can afford it... because they are so far in the lead... but are they?

Printing money solves the cost issue for America... but not for Americas allies who suffer and will struggle to keep these aircraft in service... the UK announced it costs 90K British pounds per hour to keep their F-35s flying... that is more than the B-2 costs... a big heavy strategic bomber...

The UK can't afford to give their healthcare workers a pay raise of more than 1%... considering many of the workers that helped them out with Covid were students and retirees that probably weren't paid anyway, that is an insult, but they have to pay 90K pounds per hour to fly some planes the Russians really probably are not afraid of.

At least they wont have any problems meeting US demands to spend more than 2% GDP on weapons to meet their commitments to HATO.

They wont replace their tanks, but they will have more Tridents...

I am just going to ignore this as this has nothing to do with single engine or light aircraft...

It is the most important aircraft in Russia in terms of air defence, and naval defence.

It can shoot down air targets at distances of more than 300km and sink US carriers from 2,000km with reasonable confidence... but of course most other countries are not challenged by the US, or could not expect to survive the retaliation of sinking an attacking US carrier group.

No it is not....it is something they had already but they could have easily defended without it. They are just optimally using it...they won't replace it...mig-41 what not has more odds to never take off and leave the drawing boards...

Most countries outside of the west are defence oriented...

Depends on how you look at it...India is on defence from Pakistan and Chine....Russia is on defence from Turkey when they sponsored chechens....there are many conflicts around the world before and after western dominance. You are too hypocritically naive to accept the real world....it is idiotic to pretend to not see things that exist

Lot of what you say is off topic to light fighter or single engine for light fighter. PErhaps you should stick to topic.

What the logic behind going with a single engine? Presumably this is the MIG replacement and migs always had 2 (which I had presumed was a safety thing as much as a performance thing in) . Is it because with the izd30 the performance is so great they wont need two and can therefore save on maintenance?

Lurk83 wrote:What the logic behind going with a single engine? Presumably this is the MIG replacement and migs always had 2 (which I had presumed was a safety thing as much as a performance thing in) . Is it because with the izd30 the performance is so great they wont need two and can therefore save on maintenance?

Haha there has been pages and pages of arguments about that in this thread.

Ha, true. Fair point.

Not sure what armor plating has to do with fighter engine reliability.....it is external to engine.

The armour plating was to prevent a missile hitting and destroying one engine from also destroying the other... no amount of distance will prevent fragments from a missile warhead destroying one engine from destroying or damaging the other, but an armoured plate will.

If it only had one engine then one missile hit on an Su-25 would bring it down every time. With two engines and armour between the engines to prevent the weapon damaging one from damaging both means the aircraft can survive one direct hit by MANPAD missile and use its remaining engine to get back to base.

Obviously with new DIRCMS it may not get hit at all, but two engines and armour are still very worthy additions to the design.

Flares can protect a plane too in some cases, I am not sure why you are mixing the issues. a-10 or su-25 won't last in the airspace with a capable enemy not some rag tag towel heads or goat fuckers in middle east or Afghanistan.

There are new systems that can defeat optically guided missiles, as well as onboard sensors to allow detection of targets at greater ranges and standoff weapons to keep them safer.

With datalinks to soldiers on the ground new CAS might not need to fly directly overhead, but operate a little further away from the enemy and provide an airborne radar and optical view of the targets allowing troops on the ground to highlight threats and problems that the pilot can then engage from standoff distances.

As recent as Syria, couple of them were lost to chinese or Russian manpad? What you are saying is not the topic....

MANPADS are a fact of life these days and they need to develop tactics and systems to deal with them.

Being an example where twin engines are considered standard and single engined aircraft are not even considered except in very low intensity situations.

That is because US planes, guts, deterrence and whole strategy is better

US planes are shit, I am sorry I brought them up.

topic if you try to justify angels and demons of the world.

I don't need to justify anything... Americans and Saudis have been funding terrorists for half a century and blaming Iran for supporting pro palestinian freedom fighters.

No it can't and neither does it have proper radar against any fighter.

Why do you think it needs a radar?

Against the invisible American F-35s it would be better off just using a Sapsan EO targeting pod.

Another tangent to the topic, ramjets are not typically thought of when thinking about airplanes.

Because the speeds at which they are more efficient require a turbojet to get to.

If you were designing a mach 2 to mach 3 aircraft a cheap simple reliable turbojet would be used to get the aircraft into the air, but a couple of ramjets would be used to accelerate up to full speed and to cruise at that speed.

The cheap simple reliable turbojet does not even need to be very fuel efficient because most of the time it wont be running.

ramjet's may be conceptually easy to understand but that does not mean one can build a quality one.

The Russians have a dozen different missiles they have likely made hundreds of thousands of that use ramjet engines... Russia has probably made more ramjet motors than Ford has made cars.

Talk is those planes are ground queens in PAF....no comparison to 21 which is still a good interceptor as far as speed and other aspects are concerned but its radar and other things are way past. Let the Chinese engines set some record first then we can objectively discuss....

Why are you talking about Chinese engines... the engines in those planes are Russian.

India is buying mig-29 for 2 reasons, they have infrastructure and base logistics and the timing. Their fleet was depleted by the lack of action from previous govt's and war is banging on the door. I already said carriers are based on soviet blue print and until Tejas naval comes along, mig-29k are the top candidate. Nothing to do with mig-35 purchase in place of Rafale and has nothing to do with this topic.

They bought the MiG-29KR because it suits the carrier they bought. They bought the Rafale because they were always going to buy the Rafale because France said they couldn't buy any more Mirage 2000s which is what they actually wanted.

Yet Iran can't wait to lick west's boots.

It appears that way, but most of the time it is more a case of we have released your funds that we seized so you can either use it to buy our planes or we will re freeze it and you can't have any planes.

Real world is different...morals at state level are different from moral's at individual level.

I don't agree. The west pretty clearly shows it has no morals at all. On the other hand Russia does not destroy countries by regime change for fun.

I don't really care on what type of govt someone has...my point was Egypt has a track record of shafting its supporter or ally based on these changes.

The US is less a supporter as a controller... I think the best thing Russia could do is let all her potential allies get into bed with the US so they will all learn what that feels like... I think after that experience they will appreciate Russia more and understand what proper international relations could be...

This has nothing to do with the point....your trick to sideline and offer nothing relevant.

My point is that it doesn't matter how loyal and devoted the dog is to Uncle Sam... piss on his shoes once and you get a one trip visit to the vet and no one else sucking up to uncle sam will give you a second look... very much like an all girls high school...

Then why are they designing stealth on ships or su-57 if its such a no brainer....every problem has an optimization profile that is considered relevant in its domain. Nothing to add here....just US could not use its magical stealth F-22 or 35 to take out any capable opponent, I do not expect Russian out of the world AD to ground opponents.
We can wait for future to see some real data beyoind claims on both sides...

Russia has solved the problems of the invisible stealth fighter and bomber and ship in terms of its deployed radars and missiles and systems but it knows that the west is very weak in terms of air defence... take out the AWACS aircraft and they are in real trouble, so for them stealthy aircraft and ships makes rather more sense... as long as they don't take it too far and just make them super expensive to buy and operate like the US has.

I am just going to ignore this as this has nothing to do with single engine or light aircraft...

It is the most relevant thing on the thread... in theory the F-35 was supposed to be a light 5th gen multirole fighter bomber that was going to be used by everyone and be cheap to buy and to operate because everyone will share parts and all sorts of other bullshit... but the used the same broken corrupt development structure they used on the C-17 which made it an expensive white elephant too, so they can't make excuses now and say they didn't realise doing it that way would ruin the entire programme...

No it is not....it is something they had already but they could have easily defended without it. They are just optimally using it...they won't replace it...mig-41 what not has more odds to never take off and leave the drawing boards...

For air defence in the far north and far east the MiG-31 is their best aircraft by far.

They will definitely be getting a MiG-41... it is not an air force programme it is an aerospace defence programme.

Depends on how you look at it...India is on defence from Pakistan and Chine....Russia is on defence from Turkey when they sponsored chechens....there are many conflicts around the world before and after western dominance.

No it doesn't. Most countries react to aggression from other countries as they see it. The US goes looking for conflict and creates it where there is none.

The US is evil.

You are too hypocritically naive to accept the real world....it is idiotic to pretend to not see things that exist

US propaganda centres around projection... accusing others of doing what they do... how many countries have they called evil?

The source announced the creation of a single-engine fifth-generation fighter

This is good, this will likely force MiG to go for the twin jet model and get superior performance.

This "leak" is by now fully consistent with the model also "leaked" in the interview with Borisov. Maybe Sukhoi (and apparently someone above them too) are not happy taking for granted that MiG is going to be in charge of the LMFS/PLIB/LFI or whatever this plane is called and wants to make the discussion more public. Also Rostec's Chemezov in one interview and UEC in the slides that we posted abut the engine development roadmap seem to support the idea that there is resistance to the apparent plan of MiG of developing its "light" (which is actually not light) 5G plane based on the MiG-29. So the competing approaches may be the following:

MiG:
MiG-29 -> MiG-35 as a technology demonstrator -> twin engine, middle sized 5G plane

Sukhoi:
PAK-FA & izd. 30 -> reuse of technologies and systems with one engine and ca. half the size -> 5G light fighter

I was hoping that MiG would get their act together and not get beaten yet again in the conceptual field by Sukhoi, but if things are actually like described above, they may be not thinking properly and again proposing a half arsed heavy fighter instead of a design that really understands and profits from the advantages of a smaller plane. And on top of that it would demand the creation of a new engine or at least reduction of the core of the izd. 30, which of course Klimov would oppose, wanting to develop themselves their RD-33 rooted 5G design. High expense, low added value path just to protect the position of some actors is not a workable approach IMHO.

You are reading a lot into this leak, Sukhoi has offered single engined versions of its aircraft in the past... a single engined half Su-27 in direct competition to the MiG-29 but it lost.

They even developed a smaller twin seat version in competition to the Yak-130 and it lost too... it didn't even get into the final that was between Yak-130 and MiG-AT.

Nobody has a light 5th gen fighter in service that is suitable, the F-35 is closer in weight to the MiG-29 than to the F-16.

The light fighter position is more likely to be taken by an unmanned drone than a cheap manned aircraft.

You say high expense without knowing costs, MiG is promising the MiG-35 is cheaper to operate than the MiG-29, and the percentage figures they are giving make it seem like they think operational costs wont be much more expensive than the MiG-21 was.

The Flanker is certainly a larger more capable aircraft but it also costs rather more to operate otherwise there would be no point in having the MiG-35 at all.

You could argue it is just politics and they should have a better single engined version of the existing larger aircraft, but the politics of them buying MiG-35s is not just going to go away.

Like it or loathe it, the Russian military has withdrawn all its single engined fighters and light strike aircraft... MiG-15s, MiG-17, MiG-19s, MiG-21s, MiG-23s, MiG-27s, Su-9, Su-11, and Su-7/17/20/22.

Are they prepared to go for a single engined fighter... If MiG can reduce operational costs as far as they claim with their MiG-35s and MiG-29M2 and MiG-29KR, then would there be a lot of advantage demanding they make a single engined LMFS?

Promises of single engine efficiency and capability and low cost with everyone buying the same plane to replace all sorts of other types led to the F-35...

If we look at the Gripen... it seems that those countries that can afford it want Rafales... but single engined fighters are so wonderful and efficient and cheap... surely you could have four Gripens for the price of one Rafale, so why are they buying Rafales?

Sounds like there is rather more to the mix than the number of engines.

Is this a further hint that the izd. 30 thrust is really up to 18 tf? I was sceptical they could go that far, but the 2012 statements by Marchukov plus this hint are making me consider it a possibility...

They could fake it... the engine in the MiG-21BIS had an overdrive mode for takeoff where it could run for a set period of time at 9 tons thrust... presumably by just pumping fuel into the AB...

So it's officially a single engine plane

Nice to be proven right yet again

Again no data to support your statements in statistical context, in active comabt zone, returning back to base with one engine is very unlikely.

I post photos of three separate aircraft that returned to base in one conflict after having one engine destroyed by enemy fire in post 607 above... it is not just about statistics.

Yeah, tell me how many light 5G planes are in service please

None... no one has achieved such a thing yet even assuming such a thing is possible.

Just getting it 5th gen makes so many demands but wanting it to remain small and light and cheap is a bridge too far in my opinion.

Saab and now Sukhoi say it is doable but you know better, giving the F-35 scam as an example of what Russia MIC is capable of. Respect!

Hilarious... you bag MiG for still pushing the MiG 29 design but a single engined Su-27 is OK with you... despite it being put forward for everything from the old light fighter programmes but also the LIFT programme.

I think that by necessity a 5th gen fighter will not be cheap and a medium sized and weight aircraft has more potential.... but we have discussed that already.

Maybe, but both MiG and Sukhoi are going for the manned or at least optionally manned design.

In the sense that most of their new platforms on land and in the air and presumably at sea need to be able to be used remotely.

Give me numbers for a change.

2.

I rather loathe all that happened in the 90's and taking the measures of those desperate times as an indication of Russian military doctrine is inane Western smear based on the thinking that Russian engines do not work. They had single engines in operation for decades when reliability of technology was crap, why would they not be ok with modern, reliable one?

Their technology had manual override and backups, just like two engines...

Some people (that is Sukhoi and Rostec) apparently think it does. I see their logic, but I don't have their numbers.

Sukhoi is just selling its horse again... they have sold it a couple of times, and now they are going for another sale... perfectly normal for them obviously.

JSF was the biggest scam in history of all US MIC scams... have a little respect for that at least man

But how was it allowed to happen?

They openly used the same trick they had already used on the C-17 to ensure it was sanction or budget cut proof, but that alone provided clear evidence it was always going to be enormously expensive, because the same tactics and tricks made the C-17 expensive too.

We keep hearing about expert quality assurance and management, but it is just veneer and BS.

TWR of the Su-57 empty may probably come very close to 2, and a 10 t empty single engine plane can have outstanding dynamic capabilities with the new engine, it is a very relevant news indeed.

A thrust to weight ratio of 2 is not desirable... otherwise they would already have such aircraft.... having such a high thrust to weight ratio means high fuel burn and short range and endurance.

So it's officially a single engine plane thumbsup

Nice to be proven right yet again

Hahaha... it is a proposal from Sukhoi... the odds of them winning with it will be very low, because it would give them a monopoly that the Russian military has been trying to avoid for quite some time now.

For the last several decades, aviation constructor bureaus in Russia have been focusing their efforts on perfecting the design of twin-engine fighter jets, while paying less attention to lightweight fighters.

They don't need a light weight fight, they need a cheap one.

That vectoring nozzle is what will give the new lightweight fighter an extra edge in dogfights, where Russia's Su jets already excel and have been globally acclaimed as remarkable opponents.

Having one vectoring nozzle will not give it any edge over an aircraft with two vectoring nozzles.

a design typical for US fighters, specifically the F-16.

Here we go... FalconSki. Hope you idiots are happy.

However, the lighter single-engine alternative to the Su-57 might prove to be a better dogfighting machine. The thrust vectoring nozzle allows the aircraft to easily gain a "positional advantage" over an adversary, the magazine noted. There is also an added advantage: it will benefit Russia as a major player on the global arms market, Popular Mechanics said, adding:

The MiG-29 Kicked the F-16s arse in WVR and BVR combat testing in the 1990s.... A single thrust vectoring nozzle actually isn't all that useful... it lets you swing your tail around and therefore point your nose but no roll control at all in a superstall.

Russia is already a major player in the Global Arms Market... a new 5th gen light fighter will just destroy the number of Su-57s they will export...

"Single-engine fighters are useful, too—and could sell well abroad. A Russian version of the F-35 might very well prove popular, so long as it's cheaper to buy and fly", the magazine alleged.

There you go.... who knew the F-35 is an F-16 and whatever Russia come up with now they will just be Russian copies of US aircraft designs...

There has, however, been no official confirmation of what was seen on Borisov's table actually being what the new jet will look like.

GarryB wrote:Here we go... FalconSki. Hope you idiots are happy....

Yes we are and you should be too

Sukhoi develops new advanced platforms and will be rewarded for it with contracts

MiG wasted decades trying to scam MoD by peddling repackaged Soviet stuff and will be left in the dirt

GarryB wrote:...There has, however, been no official confirmation of what was seen on Borisov's table actually being what the new jet will look like....

It will look like a single engine jet

GarryB wrote:...Hahaha... it is a proposal from Sukhoi... the odds of them winning with it will be very low, because it would give them a monopoly that the Russian military has been trying to avoid for quite some time now....

UAC already has the monopoly, Russian Military already failed at avoiding it