Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Share
    avatar
    AMCXXL

    Posts : 60
    Points : 62
    Join date : 2017-08-08

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  AMCXXL on Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:57 pm

    franco wrote:This reporter suggests there are 106 Mig-29's still active in the Russian Air Force;

    pbs.twimg.com/media/DG-eNcdXYAI6J2h.jpg:large

    A better estimate that other times and beautiful image, despite is mixing regimental numbers/names and "Airbase" numbers/names

    But I find there a few more MiG-29 in service (in the structure and flying) , about 10-15 more

    The first , reporter forgot the 195 UAB (former 797 UAP) of Kuschevskaya in Krasnodar Krai
    This is part of Krasnodar Flying School together with Armavir, 783 UTsBP ( before 200 UAB and before 713 UAP)
    Until 2016 there was a squad of about 6-8 Mig-29UB in each training base , Armavir with blue numbers and Kuschevskaya with red numbers
    This team fly for all the south bases (Privolzsky-Astrakhan , Krasnodar, Tikhoresk, Armavir...)
    A photo of a part of Krasnodar Flying School Team fliying mixed Armavir and Kuschevskaya planes


    However this year the whole team was placed in Kuschevskaya and the blue numbers were painted in red.
    At Kuschevskaya there are a complete squadron of MiG-29UB 9-51 (+/-14 planes) also had one Mig-29S ready in this base but not photos flying in 2-3 years
    At Armavir then , have only based Yak-130

    Here you can find R-92807 Nº18 in feb-2016 changed to Nº18 in feb-2017 >>>   russianplanes.net/regs/RF-92807



    In 968 IISAP Lipestk and 237 TsBAP Kubinka there are more UB´s , at least two more each base. I have not evidence if a couple of 9-13 still fly at Lipestk and 929 GLITs Akhtubinsk

    About 116 UTsBP Privolzsky-Astrakhan , after receive the Mig-29SMT/UBM , most of the old planes 9-12A and 9-12 were grounded. Most of UB´s continue flying and one more has arrived
    In 2017 , there are photos of at least 3x9-12A still flying , 5x9-13 new transferred (Millerovo,Erebuni, ARZ´s) and about 6 UB´s (excludig 6 MiG-29 to be transferred to Serbia), this means about a squadron to complement of SMT´s , expecting new planes, probably MiG-35


    The MiG-29 of Erebuni (former 426 SAG) have been changed for other repaired planes , transferred from other places, even one 9-12 from Astrakhan
    This planes have been decorated with saints of Russian tradition and similar thigns  >>>   russianplanes.net/search.php?sereq=erebuni
    I have no evidence that now have 20 planes, older planes have been sent to repair and/or to other bases as at least ome 9-13 sent to Astrakhan. Teoric number 14+2. or as much 16+2
    Anyway this base must be equipped with new aircraft , probably Mig-29SMT from Kursk , that could mean upgrade to regiment



    estimated MiG-29´s of " soviet " times : Kubinka 14-16 , Lipestk 6 , Kuschevskaya 14 , Erebuni 16-18 , Privolzsly 14-16 : 65-70 , half of them UB´s (9-51)
    As there are no more UBM orders expected, it is likely that most UB´s will remain in service after 2020
    If MoD only purchase 24 Mig-35 , the total MiG 29/35 of all types including 29K , should be arround 120-130 when the changes end arround 2020


    Last edited by AMCXXL on Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:38 am; edited 3 times in total
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16375
    Points : 16990
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 13, 2017 8:27 am

    Unless it turns out to be a complete dog I would expect that a few follow on orders will likely occur over time... the flankers are very capable aircraft but their big size and long range is not always needed, especially in western Russia where there are lots of air fields so the excessive range of the Flanker is not justified.

    Hopefully the joint venture over a light 5th gen aircraft might bear fruit to justify a few extra MiG-35s while the light 5th gen design is being fleshed out.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    kopyo-21

    Posts : 68
    Points : 70
    Join date : 2013-08-21
    Location : Bangkok - Thailand

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  kopyo-21 on Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:55 am

    GarryB wrote:Unless it turns out to be a complete dog I would expect that a few follow on orders will likely occur over time... the flankers are very capable aircraft but their big size and long range is not always needed, especially in western Russia where there are lots of air fields so the excessive range of the Flanker is not justified.

    Hopefully the joint venture over a light 5th gen aircraft might bear fruit to justify a few extra MiG-35s while the light 5th gen design is being fleshed out.
    I think so too. Su-35s are not as fast, agility and maneuver as Mig-35s when doing dogfire that RAF still need to protect home land in the last layout.
    avatar
    AMCXXL

    Posts : 60
    Points : 62
    Join date : 2017-08-08

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  AMCXXL on Fri Aug 18, 2017 7:36 am

    kopyo-21 wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Unless it turns out to be a complete dog I would expect that a few follow on orders will likely occur over time... the flankers are very capable aircraft but their big size and long range is not always needed, especially in western Russia where there are lots of air fields so the excessive range of the Flanker is not justified.

    Hopefully the joint venture over a light 5th gen aircraft might bear fruit to justify a few extra MiG-35s while the light 5th gen design is being fleshed out.
    I think so too. Su-35s are not as fast, agility and maneuver as Mig-35s when doing dogfire that RAF still need to protect home land in the last layout.

    West Russia is so big as all West Europe (UE ) or even more
    The "battle of england" scenary is not posible over the Russia skys
    For protect the homeland not only planes, also one thosusend of Su-400/300 launchers are deployed, and of course , Rusia also has the nuclear deterrance
    Mig.29/35 only has reason in Caucasus scenary

    Su-35 is a superiority fighter, the complement for this role will be SU-57, not Su.30SM ,and in Siberia/Far North , the Mig-31BM
    Mig-29 and Mig-35 are multirole, in fact Mig-29 was in the frontal aviation in USSR/Rusia , together Su-24, 25, Mig-27, etc... , while Su-27 was part of PVO forces as Mig-31 , Mig-25 , Mig-23 etc...

    the Mig-29 is being replaced for Su-30SM as multirole fighter.Domna, Kursk , Millerovo, and probably some other new base to reach about 140 planes
    ALso SU-30SM replaces Su-24 in the Navy, a strike/bomber plane  

    VVS DOESN´T WANT AND DOESN´T NEED MIG´s 29/35
    Mig-35 CONTRACT IS A POLITICAL PURCHASE , as the 16 SMT´s, for give oxigen to MiG company
    If were posible , VVS would sell the 50 Su-29SMT/UBM , even the newest , to any small/middle country and would get more Su-30SM for Yerevan, Astrakhan,training/display units etc... for reach more than 200 SU-30SM

    VVS can give thanks to God for the delays of almost a decade with Mig-35 , in other case , now would have Mig-35 at Domna, Millerovo , Kursk , etc...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16375
    Points : 16990
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:07 am

    Even if it is just a political purchase it is a necessary purchase to prevent a monopoly in fighter aircraft.

    The main problem is paper warriors and bean counters look at the MiG-29 and the Su-27 and think the Su-27 is superior because both aircraft have similar speed, the Su-27 costs more but has better range and weapon capacity, so you can use one Su-27s to cover the same area as one MiG-29 and the Su-27 is not three times more expensive than the MiG-29.

    The problem is that this logic is bloody stupid.

    Just because an Su-27 can fly to a radius of 2,000km while a MiG-29 operates to a radius of 1,000km does not mean you can use half as many Su-27s in half the number of air fields to protect the same air space.

    The Su-27 is able to fly twice as far on each mission but at the same speeds it cannot actually fly twice as far per mission.

    Two MiG-29s however can cover twice the area that one Su-27 can cover per mission because there is two of them.

    In the far east where there are fewer airfields located a long way apart then long range aircraft become useful as they fill the gaps between airfields better than shorter ranged aircraft.

    In western Russia where there are already plenty of air fields having fewer aircraft just means getting poorer coverage... and is rather stupid.

    Brand new modern weapons will be much better performing so having ten missiles under your wings will generally be good enough most of the time.

    Operational photos of planes performing real missions show they rarely even have all their weapon pylons fully loaded anyway.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3095
    Points : 3216
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  kvs on Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:29 am

    GarryB wrote:Even if it is just a political purchase it is a necessary purchase to prevent a monopoly in fighter aircraft.

    The main problem is paper warriors and bean counters look at the MiG-29 and the Su-27 and think the Su-27 is superior because both aircraft have similar speed, the Su-27 costs more but has better range and weapon capacity, so you can use one Su-27s to cover the same area as one MiG-29 and the Su-27 is not three times more expensive than the MiG-29.

    The problem is that this logic is bloody stupid.

    Just because an Su-27 can fly to a radius of 2,000km while a MiG-29 operates to a radius of 1,000km does not mean you can use half as many Su-27s in half the number of air fields to protect the same air space.

    The Su-27 is able to fly twice as far on each mission but at the same speeds it cannot actually fly twice as far per mission.

    Two MiG-29s however can cover twice the area that one Su-27 can cover per mission because there is two of them.

    In the far east where there are fewer airfields located a long way apart then long range aircraft become useful as they fill the gaps between airfields better than shorter ranged aircraft.

    In western Russia where there are already plenty of air fields having fewer aircraft just means getting poorer coverage... and is rather stupid.

    Brand new modern weapons will be much better performing so having ten missiles under your wings will generally be good enough most of the time.

    Operational photos of planes performing real missions show they rarely even have all their weapon pylons fully loaded anyway.

    The idea of covering different roles and needs by different equipment is key. A fine example is the "technical" as discussed on other threads.
    Assuming tanks and BMPs can cover all possible uses is plain wrong. Combat in Syria, Africa, and elsewhere under low density infantry
    warfare demonstrates the need for technicals which were actually used during the post 1917 civil war in the USSR.

    Russia can afford Mig-35s to fill various roles in its forces. One of the biggest threats to Russian security is penny pinching maggots
    inside the government and hordes of pundits and media personalities who can always claim the money should be spent on orphans or
    some other bleeding heart sh*t. I think Russia should be spending 6% of its GDP on military and not 3% in the near term. Due to re-arming
    and dealing with the 1990s collapse, special conditions apply. The number 3% is relevant for the long term, stable regime such as
    in the USA or other NATO countries.

    Mig should be contracted to develop its own stealth fighter version. Mig should also get money to develop large UAVs. So far
    all I am seeing is some sort of trickle down development. This is leaving Russia well behind the curve.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1305
    Points : 1305
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  miketheterrible on Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:42 am

    No, Russia shouldn't be spending 6% on military. It had trouble trying to fund everything from the budget with 4%. There are things called social benefits that Russia has to maintain just to keep the country alive. Most of you think Russia is in threat of invasion and that it will happen tomorrow. But none of you can grasp the idea that Russia won't be directly attacked militarily because of the fact that even being able to spend a lot less, they produce a lot more and have enough nukes to blow up this world 3x over. US won't even attack North Korea which doesn't even come close to Russia's military capabilities.

    Russia's biggest threat is from the inside, and everyone including the President knows this. hence why they created the National Guard. Hence why they keep taxes low. Hence why they have all these social programs that average Russian takes for granted (Subsidized Education, medicine, etc). That costs a fortune and for Russias overall GDP, is more than what most western nations provide. But at that, it costs so much, a lot of it is dilapidated and needs to be fixed.

    You know What Russia's real problem is? Not being able to get rid of corruption. The more they spend, the more that will be lost. So they are going the other route - not spending as much but making every Ruble count. Hence why they have these new programs out to monitor flow of money within the country.

    They can militarily prepare themselves by upgrading existing jets to newest capabilities and build newer jets in reasonable numbers. That is EXACTLY what they are doing now. Once the current orders are completed, then they will order more. That is how it has always been and always will be. Yes, I would like to see 500 Su-57's and such. But let us be real here. Since Russia isn't in a shooting war, it has to still play by the economics game.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3095
    Points : 3216
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  kvs on Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:56 am

    miketheterrible wrote:No, Russia shouldn't be spending 6% on military.  It had trouble trying to fund everything from the budget with 4%.  There are things called social benefits that Russia has to maintain just to keep the country alive.  Most of you think Russia is in threat of invasion and that it will happen tomorrow.  But none of you can grasp the idea that Russia won't be directly attacked militarily because of the fact that even being able to spend a lot less, they produce a lot more and have enough nukes to blow up this world 3x over.  US won't even attack North Korea which doesn't even come close to Russia's military capabilities.

    Russia's biggest threat is from the inside, and everyone including the President knows this.  hence why they created the National Guard.  Hence why they keep taxes low.  Hence why they have all these social programs that average Russian takes for granted (Subsidized Education, medicine, etc).  That costs a fortune and for Russias overall GDP, is more than what most western nations provide.  But at that, it costs so much, a lot of it is dilapidated and needs to be fixed.

    You know What Russia's real problem is? Not being able to get rid of corruption.  The more they spend, the more that will be lost.  So they are going the other route - not spending as much but making every Ruble count.  Hence why they have these new programs out to monitor flow of money within the country.

    They can militarily prepare themselves by upgrading existing jets to newest capabilities and build newer jets in reasonable numbers.  That is EXACTLY what they are doing now.  Once the current orders are completed, then they will order more.  That is how it has always been and always will be.  Yes, I would like to see 500 Su-57's and such.  But let us be real here.  Since Russia isn't in a shooting war, it has to still play by the economics game.

    Corruption is a vapid term that means whatever the spin being applied to it. Russia does not have Ukraine's rot level problem and NATO is
    full of corruption even though it pretends to be squeaky clean. I did not say to spend 6% indefinitely. And your claim that Russia's threats
    are only internal is based on what? Russia should spend all that it needs to spend for 10 years to overcome the 1990s collapse and Soviet
    deficiencies and if it has to run up a debt to do this, then it is worth it. A side effect of the 6% will be serious GDP stimulus (the USA rides
    this rather well) that will translate into more money for all the social programs you talk about. Social spending in Russia does not have to be
    a zero sum game. It is monetarist parasite at the CBR and the Ministry of Finance that impose this religion on the country. While the west
    takes the most pragmatic approach, Russia is saddled with false dogma. If you want Russians to have better social services, then the CBR
    needs to be purged completely and the current near 10% interest rate reduced to 2%. In addition, Russians should learn that paying a 13%
    flat income tax is not sufficient for western style social services. If they want the goodies, then they should pay a progressive income tax
    like western citizens.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1305
    Points : 1305
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  miketheterrible on Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:40 am

    Yeah, they tried your suggestion during the 80's and it didn't work. It isn't working for the US either. Definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

    Funny thing too, is that Russia's export of food exceeds its military sales now, even though its food production is rather new compared to its military. So low and behold, its military production isn't actually fetching Russia a whole lot compared to its input. In reality,they need to spend what they need, not what we want, and they are already doing that. Building up debt to build more weapons for themselves isn't going to solve any issue. It will create more issues. Instead, they are doing it smart - living within their means and developing what they need. They aren't going to stop procurement or anything.
    Tell me, do you really believe Russia has more direct military threats than it does with 5th column activity? If you think so, then you are delusional. If you think NATO will strike now or even 10 years from now, you are only fooling yourself.  They would strike if Russia put $0 to their military, but they aren't. Instead, dissent is being fermented from outside to create issue inside Russia. Navalny is an example of that. He is a bigger threat than NATO for Russia.

    Spending 6% even short term is stupid. Not even China does that and they are all about overly inflated numbering schemes like the US.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Notable_hyperinflationary_episodes

    Since Russian Ruble isn't a reserve currency, and since it really isn't the center of trading, it will not be able to pull the same scheme as US does. China does it through infrastructure schemes. Russia doesn't do that and rightly so.

    What will help, is when Russia's economy advances even more after they move some investments from the military to civillian and more businesses spring up and development, means more money in the economy and thus more spending later on even if it is still only 3%. That is what they are going to do and trying. Building more weapons isn't going to make them even safer. In the end, they can produce significant amount of weapons if the threat becomes too obvious and the US/NATO openly "prepares". Till then, all it will do is create an arms race Russia cannot afford. So doing it the "slow and steady wins the race" concept is the correct method. Anyway, they seem to be able to procure more in this method than other methods.

    And yes, corruption in Russia does exist. A lot of money from the defense budget has been stolen since SAP2020 program and thus that is why they introduced new methods of monitoring the money flow. See Vostochny as an example.
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1076
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sat Aug 19, 2017 9:28 am

    miketheterrible wrote:Yeah, they tried your suggestion during the 80's and it didn't work. It isn't working for the US either. Definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

    Funny thing too, is that Russia's export of food exceeds its military sales now, even though its food production is rather new compared to its military. So low and behold, its military production isn't actually fetching Russia a whole lot compared to its input. In reality,they need to spend what they need, not what we want, and they are already doing that. Building up debt to build more weapons for themselves isn't going to solve any issue. It will create more issues. Instead, they are doing it smart - living within their means and developing what they need. They aren't going to stop procurement or anything.
    Tell me, do you really believe Russia has more direct military threats than it does with 5th column activity? If you think so, then you are delusional. If you think NATO will strike now or even 10 years from now, you are only fooling yourself.  They would strike if Russia put $0 to their military, but they aren't. Instead, dissent is being fermented from outside to create issue inside Russia. Navalny is an example of that. He is a bigger threat than NATO for Russia.

    Spending 6% even short term is stupid. Not even China does that and they are all about overly inflated numbering schemes like the US.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Notable_hyperinflationary_episodes

    Since Russian Ruble isn't a reserve currency, and since it really isn't the center of trading, it will not be able to pull the same scheme as US does.  China does it through infrastructure schemes.  Russia doesn't do that and rightly so.

    What will help, is when Russia's economy advances even more after they move some investments from the military to civillian and more businesses spring up and development, means more money in the economy and thus more spending later on even if it is still only 3%.  That is what they are going to do and trying.  Building more weapons isn't going to make them even safer.  In the end, they can produce significant amount of weapons if the threat becomes too obvious and the US/NATO openly "prepares".  Till then, all it will do is create an arms race Russia cannot afford.  So doing it the "slow and steady wins the race" concept is the correct method.  Anyway, they seem to be able to procure more in this method than other methods.

    And yes, corruption in Russia does exist.  A lot of money from the defense budget has been stolen since SAP2020 program and thus that is why they introduced new methods of monitoring the money flow.  See Vostochny as an example.

    I agree with mike here. Corruption needs to be tackled and the economy diversified from oil and gas and as for threats we only have to look at the west's current approach civil unrest and civil war then arm locals to do the dirty work and possible cyber attacks NATO won't attack Russia solely because of nukes. As for military Russia is doing the right thing a mix of upgrades and new purchases making it a capable force and still a threat without going into crazy spending mode. The efficiency of the Russian Armed Forces in Syria has worried the west the image of a run down post soviet collapse army has gone and even average numb minded bias media reading population has started to realise this. Even North Korea won't be attacked anytime soon the west could have easily destroyed nuclear facilities in the country but haven't because of the aftermath, South Korea would face a certain attack. When I visited DPRK I looked at many things and even the guides pointed out some military points the country would be a military nightmare I have also visited the chu chi min tunnels in Vietnam used by vietcong also hideous but north Korea would be 100 times worse they have huge concrete pillars on main roads which are designed to be blown to block the roads. Great little ideas like this are all over the country
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1305
    Points : 1305
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  miketheterrible on Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:23 am

    Russia's economy is diversified, the issue is that the country lacks the drive by locals to really do their own business and to push for their own developments. The government has done it for them for so long, they don't know how I suppose. What the main goal is, is to fix the foundation that was left behind for them by Soviet Union - fix the infrastructure and build new ones, fix the healthcare system, fix the education system. One big bite at Russia for years was monograds which were more or less a 1 industry horse town that survived entirely on that 1 industry. They are fixing this. Togliatti now produces much more than just cars - agriculture goods, pharmaceuticals, and others. But western Russia, while rich, eastern and central Russia is not. So the concentration is getting those regions up to par with western Russia, which in turn should create stability throughout the nation. That stability brings more people, more business, more investments. All in all, Russia is in the right direction, but they aren't there yet.

    Russia still imports petrol, food, equipment, electronics, etc. They need to reduce greatly to almost 0 the import of petrol and food. Equipment and electronics can still be imported as they are not strategic overall (since strategic ones are starting to be made in house). Biggest move is to get the MiC's out of relying on government orders, and into civilian products. This does a couple of things 1) makes income more steady for the industries, meaning more money incoming means more money for potential R&D and further investments and ultimately more tax money and (2) creates products that people need and able to do that all in house.

    Investing in MiG-35's isn't a bad idea as it keeps the business alive and same with R&D and people working. But they cannot just survive off of this. Mikoyan has a name to it. They can produce civilian goods like models, parts for any other equipment, utensils, etc. They used to do this during the 90's to stay alive and it worked. They can do it now to diversify their development.

    But we have digressed from topic at hand.

    My opinion is that the MiG-29's still have somewhat of a market but most nations are looking for something real cheap and capable. If I am doing my math right, MiG-35's cost nearly as much, or more, than Su-35S while not being in the same league in terms of performance. This is an issue. Same with the fact that 2 engines means more maintenance and costs while it is a light fighter, a single engine could do wonders. A single jet engine aircraft is in the interest in many nations, and I think Russia could produce one that would be more geared towards export and maybe used in their smaller bases abroad or maybe at home like Kaliningrad and Crimea.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16375
    Points : 16990
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:40 am

    I don't think Russia would be well served by increasing defence spending, but consolidating all its defence design departments down to one or two is short sighted.

    Competition is good because it drives everyone to be better, but it is horrendously wasteful when you end up basically spending to develop two separate products for every role where one wins all and the other is forced to find foreign financial backers.

    I must say isolation for western products seems to be best for Russia internally, so a drive to commercialise technologies in Russia and to find uses for the new technologies developed should be a focus.

    New technologies and materials that help armed forces bases in deep siberia operate all winter long should be applicable to small villages in the region too... solar technology, new thermal materials etc etc low energy electronics etc.

    The point is that they should not be punishing MiG and just buying Sukhoi material... there is plenty of room for MiG-35s and Su-35s in the Russian AF. There is also room for PAK FA and a MiG-31 replacement and a new light weight 5th gen fighter.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    AMCXXL

    Posts : 60
    Points : 62
    Join date : 2017-08-08

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  AMCXXL on Sat Aug 19, 2017 11:11 am

    GarryB wrote:Even if it is just a political purchase it is a necessary purchase to prevent a monopoly in fighter aircraft.

    The main problem is paper warriors and bean counters look at the MiG-29 and the Su-27 and think the Su-27 is superior because both aircraft have similar speed, the Su-27 costs more but has better range and weapon capacity, so you can use one Su-27s to cover the same area as one MiG-29 and the Su-27 is not three times more expensive than the MiG-29.

    The problem is that this logic is bloody stupid.

    Just because an Su-27 can fly to a radius of 2,000km while a MiG-29 operates to a radius of 1,000km does not mean you can use half as many Su-27s in half the number of air fields to protect the same air space.

    The Su-27 is able to fly twice as far on each mission but at the same speeds it cannot actually fly twice as far per mission.

    Two MiG-29s however can cover twice the area that one Su-27 can cover per mission because there is two of them.

    In the far east where there are fewer airfields located a long way apart then long range aircraft become useful as they fill the gaps between airfields better than shorter ranged aircraft.

    In western Russia where there are already plenty of air fields having fewer aircraft just means getting poorer coverage... and is rather stupid.

    Brand new modern weapons will be much better performing so having ten missiles under your wings will generally be good enough most of the time.

    Operational photos of planes performing real missions show they rarely even have all their weapon pylons fully loaded anyway.


    Sorry but you are mistaken again

    You are comparing Mig-29 with SU-27 , that was designed in late 70´s for a diferent type of scenario and diferent roles than nowadays are needed
    Please review soviet order of battle
    Mig-29 and Su-27 worked mostly in diferent branches, Mig-29 mainly in frontal aviation with planes like Su-24
    Su-27 mainly in PVO divisions with Mig-31 and anti aircraft missile regiments

    The question isn´t between  Mig-29/35 and Su-27/35 , is between Mig-35 and Su-30SM ( "MK5" , a two seater multirole aircraft)
    I just remarked the facts , the generals of VKS have choosen SU-30SM , and as I am not VKS general , I can only verify the reality

    All these supposed characteristics and qualities of airplanes, which are reserved matter, are only conjectures or things read in one of those magazines of aviation
    VKS has 35 years of experience with these aircraft and unless here is a pilot of the VKS I do not think there is anyone here with capacity to question the experts and generals of VKS
    Also , seem to forget that planes are shot down by missiles many miles away , Top Gun is an mid-80's movie
     

    I cannot understand why people in this fórum are surprised for the change in Kursk of Mig-29SMT for Su-30SM , after Millerovo and Domna did the same change of Mig-29 for SU-30SM
    In fact Mig-29SMT are in the RuAF only because Algeria rejected them , in other case at Kursk today would still have the planes that are now parked in Kuschevskaya or Astrakhan
    Also cannot understand that others want "more Su-35 instead the SU-30SM" , when are replacing diferent planes for different roles
    Nobody really understood what the VKS generals are doing????
    As you see in Syria was destined a brigade with Su-25 , SU-24  , SU-34 and Su-30SM. Later , when Turkey shooted down a SU-24 Putin sent a Su-35 unit and S-400 unit


    ABout the Mig-35 , seems naturally that military complex need that VKS purchases some and test them on their units before to export
    The matter is VKS already have 50 Mig-29SMT/UBM , that should not have , especially the last 16

    Now, the question is , where the Mig-29SMT of Kursk will be based ? , thinking VKS must buy other 24 Mig-35

    The only Mig-29 unit remaining , is the outstanding unit of Yerevan , but it is a squadron , not a regiment
    In case to upgrade of Yerevan to regiment with the Mig-29SMT , Mig-35 will go to complete a second squadron in Astrakhan , together the new Mig-29SMT , and the other 6-8 planes to Kubinka

    However , It is not logical for pilots to train in Astrakan unit with Mig-29/35 when most combat units have Su-30SM
    Other posibility is open a new regiment, in a newly rebuilt base in the Caucasus área for send the Mig-29SMT there: Mozdok
    In that case the Mig-35 would go to Yerevan squadron and Kubinka , and the other Astrakhan squadron would be completed with SU-30SM for training at Ashuluk Range


    Please, the military bugdet and political situation of Russia is not of this topic


    GarryB wrote:
    Competition is good because it drives everyone to be better, but it is horrendously wasteful when you end up basically spending to develop two separate products for every role where one wins all and the other is forced to find foreign financial backers.

    I must say isolation for western products seems to be best for Russia internally, so a drive to commercialise technologies in Russia and to find uses for the new technologies developed should be a focus..

    Competition is only a neoliberal fiction
    In USSR of course there was not competition and had a lot of Aeronautical Design Bureaus with very good results in some fields

    But in USA either, the contracts are rigged and the price only rises and rises with a lot of corruption in the military complex and Washihgton lobbies
    Of all the aeronautical companies that had been in WW2 they have been merging and creating 2 large corporations or sometimes  "joint ventures" with contracts insured for being a duopoly

    MiG has been left behind, when in the USSR it was the main bureau of design in warplanes
    Sukhoi is likely to absorb MiG, to manage its factories, and MiG will remain only as a design office, sub-section to Sukhoi
    We must wait for the Mig-41 product to replace the Mig-31, perhaps MiG resurges again


    Last edited by AMCXXL on Sat Aug 19, 2017 1:56 pm; edited 5 times in total
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1076
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sat Aug 19, 2017 11:53 am

    miketheterrible wrote:

    My opinion is that the MiG-29's still have somewhat of a market but most nations are looking for something real cheap and capable.  If I am doing my math right, MiG-35's cost nearly as much, or more, than Su-35S while not being in the same league in terms of performance.  This is an issue.  Same with the fact that 2 engines means more maintenance and costs while it is a light fighter, a single engine could do wonders.  A single jet engine aircraft is in the interest in many nations, and I think Russia could produce one that would be more geared towards export and maybe used in their smaller bases abroad or maybe at home like Kaliningrad and Crimea.

    I think the costs in developing a single engined aircraft out weights potential costs in maintaining a twin engined Mig-29SMT unless you were of course going to develop something new and much better than it. But countries looking for a cheap aircraft I think they would struggle to find cheaper and better than Mig-29SMT of course another cheap option although not better but still good would be a combat version of Yak-130. Also if you look at some single engined aircraft currently on the market and price tag and maintenance like F-16 and Gripen they are still very pricey in both areas. But maybe in the future Mig might produce a single engine but I still think it unlikely
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3095
    Points : 3216
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  kvs on Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:20 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:
    I agree with mike here. Corruption needs to be tackled and the economy diversified from oil and gas

    You should first inform yourself about Russia's economic diversification before repeating this BS trope.

    https://www.awaragroup.com/blog/russian-economy-2014-2016-the-years-of-sanctions-warfare/

    Oil and gas are less than 10% of GDP. Russia has one of the lowest import fractions on the planet which
    proves that it makes most of its own goods and services. Judging its diversification based on its exports
    is pure nonsense.

    As I said, corruption is a political attack word that flexes to meet the demands of its user. If you care
    about Russian corruption then you should be informed about its level and limitations as to what can be
    done about it. Clearly this is not the case.


    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3095
    Points : 3216
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  kvs on Sat Aug 19, 2017 3:08 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:Yeah, they tried your suggestion during the 80's and it didn't work. It isn't working for the US either. Definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

    What? You don't even bother replying to my points and come up with some bizarre claim. What has Soviet economics to do with
    Russian economics? If you think that US defense spending creates no economics stimulus, well then, you are all by yourself in that
    conviction.

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2015/08/19/dollars-at-work-what-defense-spending-means-for-the-u-s-economy/

    https://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/economy/reports/2009/02/02/5572/military-spending-can-grow-the-nations-economy/

    https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/stimulus


    Funny thing too, is that Russia's export of food exceeds its military sales now, even though its food production is rather new compared to its military. So low and behold, its military production isn't actually fetching Russia a whole lot compared to its input.

    So your logic is that since some other sector of the Russian economy is doing well, the military sector should be ignored? You are clearly
    trapped in zero sum thinking on this subject. Military spending creates economic stimulus. Period.


    In reality,they need to spend what they need, not what we want, and they are already doing that. Building up debt to build more weapons for themselves isn't going to solve any issue. It will create more issues.

    What the hell are you smoking... Replacing worn down equipment creates issues for the military? Building up defense capacity creates
    problems? In case you are not aware, Russia's military is a shadow of the Soviet military. It is not consuming 50% of the GDP.


    Instead, they are doing it smart - living within their means and developing what they need.

    A vapid phrase designed to sound like it has profound meaning. Go ahead and tell every company on the planet to stop borrowing and
    to live by its own means. You will have achieved global depression in a few days. Really, dude, stop the crap spew.


    They aren't going to stop procurement or anything.

    You are deliberately ignoring the time aspect. Your stupid, monetarist plan would have Russia take 100 years to rebuild its defenses.
    In the real world there something known as "opportunity cost". While Russia is pinching pennies its enemies will take the advantage.
    Your response to a 3% of GDP extra spending over 10 years is totally hysterical. What's your personal stake in this?

    A 3% GDP pure debt financed spending program would not even produce a 30% GDP debt after 10 years due to stimulus effects
    that increase GDP growth. Russia's final debt from this vital program would be around 25%. This debt is what should be retired
    over 100 years.


    Tell me, do you really believe Russia has more direct military threats than it does with 5th column activity? If you think so, then you are delusional.

    Take a valium, dude. It has both. Yet again, you are trapped in some sort of zero sum thinking mode. You actually think that
    if Russia has 5th column activity it has no foreign threats. As they say, people in glass houses shouldn't throw bricks.


    If you think NATO will strike now or even 10 years from now, you are only fooling yourself.  They would strike if Russia put $0 to their military, but they aren't.

    It is clear that you have no idea what they are doing and are making wild assed assumptions to support your bizarre zero sum thinking.
    I see the US basically admitting that soft power regime change is failing in Russia. So it throws the punk ass claim that Russia is meddling
    in the US presidential election. This is a causus belli. The US is threatening war on North Korea. This is a direct attack on both
    Russia and China. The US and NATO know that their chances of waging successful war against Russia are attenuating from year to year.
    The window is closing. But it is not closing that fast and your approach would delay the closure of this window by decades.


    Instead, dissent is being fermented from outside to create issue inside Russia. Navalny is an example of that. He is a bigger threat than NATO for Russia.

    You write this as if I have no awareness of the subject. Cut the crap. You are engaged in

    1) rabid complacency by assuming NATO will never attack

    2) changing the subject by focusing on 5th column activity as if that is not a part of a larger military agenda.


    Spending 6% even short term is stupid. Not even China does that and they are all about overly inflated numbering schemes like the US.

    Back again to total dismissal of opportunity cost and the fact that NATO sees a closing window of opportunity to attack Russia.
    You need to get a grip.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Notable_hyperinflationary_episodes

    What an absurd canard. There is zero risk of the CPI increasing with 3% of GDP additional spending in Russia. Talk about hyperinflation
    is simply detached from reality. Russia was growing its money supply by 50% per year for most of the 2000s and the CPI was below
    15%. According to monetarists, and clearly yourself, there should have been hyperinflation in Russia. You really have no sense of
    numbers in this area. A 3% of GDP spending increase is not 50% of GDP and not a 500% increase in money injected into the economy.
    The consolidated Russian budget is over 20% of GDP. It is over 30% of GDP in other countries. Do the math, sunshine.


    Since Russian Ruble isn't a reserve currency, and since it really isn't the center of trading, it will not be able to pull the same scheme as US does.  China does it through infrastructure schemes.  Russia doesn't do that and rightly so.

    Your argument is non sequitur and irrelevant. You implicitly assume that Russia has zero slack for any government spending increases.
    Go ahead, give a reference that supports your point. For anyone with a clue, it is clear that Russia has a lot of growth potential and
    is not saturated in terms of GDP.


    What will help, is when Russia's economy advances even more after they move some investments from the military to civillian and more businesses spring up and development, means more money in the economy and thus more spending later on even if it is still only 3%.  That is what they are going to do and trying.  Building more weapons isn't going to make them even safer.  In the end, they can produce significant amount of weapons if the threat becomes too obvious and the US/NATO openly "prepares".  Till then, all it will do is create an arms race Russia cannot afford.  So doing it the "slow and steady wins the race" concept is the correct method.  Anyway, they seem to be able to procure more in this method than other methods.

    Again, you simply ignore time constraints. Russia does not have the option of leisurely rebuilding its military. It is thanks to Russian
    military spending that NATO has not attacked already. But NATO thought it could foist regime change on Russia before. Now it is aware
    that no such regime change is going to happen. Meanwhile Russia is becoming an existential commercial competitor threat. Wars have
    been staged over much smaller pretexts.


    And yes, corruption in Russia does exist.  A lot of money from the defense budget has been stolen since SAP2020 program and thus that is why they introduced new methods of monitoring the money flow.  See Vostochny as an example.

    In the usual internet political debate style you totally ignore what I said. Bugger off. I never said there was no corruption. And people like
    you would spend all of Russia's time chasing down the impossible to remove corruption tail trying to reach the hopeless zero percent corruption
    down the asymptote at infinity. When I see a quantification of Russian corruption relative to NATO and Ukraine that supports your contention
    then you will gain some credibility. From what I see Russia's corruption level can be reduced, but basically at a leisurely pace. Not by throwing
    out all other priorities. This corruption topic is yet another diversionary effort in this discussion like the 5th column activity. Rebuilding the
    military is a separate subject and not some zero sum with these other issues.

    T-47

    Posts : 181
    Points : 185
    Join date : 2017-07-17
    Location : Planet Earth

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  T-47 on Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:07 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:
    I think the costs in developing a single engined aircraft out weights potential costs in maintaining a twin engined Mig-29SMT unless you were of course going to develop something new and much better than it. But countries looking for a cheap aircraft I think they would struggle to find cheaper and better than Mig-29SMT of course another  cheap option although not better but still good would be a combat version of Yak-130. Also if you look at some single engined aircraft currently on the market and price tag and maintenance like F-16 and Gripen they are still very pricey in both areas. But maybe in the future Mig might produce a single engine but I still think it unlikely

    J-10B will soon end their struggle to find cheap aircraft. For example Bangladesh air force is already in talks for 16 J-10B for replacement of their F-7BG. Its far less expensive than F-16 or Gripen.

    Russia stayed away from single engine aircraft since 70s. I don't think they got any plan for re-introducing it. UAC should carry the work on their own only for foreign customers.

    And kvs please invent some methods to eat steel and drink diesel first, then talk about 6% GDP military budget.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3095
    Points : 3216
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  kvs on Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:39 pm

    T-47 wrote:
    d_taddei2 wrote:
    I think the costs in developing a single engined aircraft out weights potential costs in maintaining a twin engined Mig-29SMT unless you were of course going to develop something new and much better than it. But countries looking for a cheap aircraft I think they would struggle to find cheaper and better than Mig-29SMT of course another  cheap option although not better but still good would be a combat version of Yak-130. Also if you look at some single engined aircraft currently on the market and price tag and maintenance like F-16 and Gripen they are still very pricey in both areas. But maybe in the future Mig might produce a single engine but I still think it unlikely

    J-10B will soon end their struggle to find cheap aircraft. For example Bangladesh air force is already in talks for 16 J-10B for replacement of their F-7BG. Its far less expensive than F-16 or Gripen.

    Russia stayed away from single engine aircraft since 70s. I don't think they got any plan for re-introducing it. UAC should carry the work on their own only for foreign customers.

    And kvs please invent some methods to eat steel and drink diesel first, then talk about 6% GDP military budget.

    Another stellar intellect joins the fray. All you clueless, opinionated windbags and your shitty one-liners. Russia is basically
    the only real-sized country on the planet that tries to have a zero sized budget deficit. China does not drink the monetarist
    koolaid and runs the deficits it needs. You can laugh at China, being an ignorant prick and all, but it is not holding back
    building up its military. Russia is still milking its Soviet legacy.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1305
    Points : 1305
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  miketheterrible on Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:39 pm

    Kvs, your economic model not only doesn't make sense, it isn't supported by anyone.  May I suggest go telling the Russian government how stupid they are? At least their "zero sum" whatever the fuck that means in this convo, economics is showing growth and a proper development path.  You and austin must be the worlds smartest Fucking men while the rest of us, including Russian government is Fucking stupid.

    Be real already. Russia racked up debt before. So did many more. It isn't doing them good or hasn't. The world economy is barely growing.  You think the 3% defense spending isn't enough to modernize Russia's forces, but it is, it all falls under SAP2020.  You Can sit here and call all of us Retards but be real, look at the numbers and see the results. By 2020 they will be 70+ modernized and they will do another SAP to meet the next 30% while keeping funds for development of newer technology.

    Get back to us when NATO attacks Iran or North Korea. Those two targets are more likely than Russia.  You talk of Zero sum, well, go learn MAD.  They won't attack Iran or NK, but they will Russia. Lol OK.

    And yes, if debt burden is a recent example for them - see 1998 debt default.  Internal issues are Russia biggest threat so they need to fix their own structure first. Last time Russia was attacked directly by another state was WWII. Last time Russia was attacked internally with a near civil was was 1999 early 2000's with second Chechen conflict. During the 90's, other regions of Russia were trying to leave as well all because of its shit economics of high debt and little growth.

    When they were spending 4% on military budget, they ended up with 3T+ ruble deficit. If it is 6%, it would have been larger.  Instead, 3% gives them about 1T ruble deficit.

    You aren't going to convince most of us. You can just continue thinking we are all moneterist scumbags Retards with no knowledge of economics at all.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3095
    Points : 3216
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  kvs on Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:16 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:Kvs, your economic model not only doesn't make sense, it isn't supported by anyone.  May I suggest go telling the Russian government how stupid they are? At least their "zero sum" whatever the fuck that means in this convo, economics is showing growth and a proper development path.  You and austin must be the worlds smartest Fucking men while the rest of us, including Russian government is Fucking stupid.

    As expected you not only misrepresent my position but have zero retort other than retarded ad hominems.

    What economic model are you driveling on about? The monetarist witchdoctor model foisted on Russia during the 1990s by the likes of Jeffrey Sachs?
    You are grasping at straws. Clearly the notion of running a zero deficit budget under all conditions is insane. But you claim that zero deficit,
    monetarist voodoo budgets are the "norm". Aside from Russia, where? I dare you to give examples.


    Be real already. Russia racked up debt before. So did many more. It isn't doing them good or hasn't. The world economy is barely growing.  You think the 3% defense spending isn't enough to modernize Russia's forces, but it is, it all falls under SAP2020.  You Can sit here and call all of us Retards but be real, look at the numbers and see the results. By 2020 they will be 70+ modernized and they will do another SAP to meet the next 30% while keeping funds for development of newer technology.

    You are the name caller and can't handle the issues I raise. You return to your debunked talking points like a broken record.
    Russia can clearly afford an extra 3% GDP on defense spending for 10 years. It can then achieve a proper modernization plan
    instead of hoping NATO leaves it alone because deficits are the ultimate sin and bleshphemy against the monetarist cult dogma.


    Get back to us when NATO attacks Iran or North Korea. Those two targets are more likely than Russia.  You talk of Zero sum, well, go learn MAD.  They won't attack Iran or NK, but they will Russia. Lol OK.

    Stop using your worthless gut feelings as proof of anything other then the worthlessness of your "nothing will ever happen" delusions.


    And yes, if debt burden is a recent example for them - see 1998 debt default.

    You really ought to put the crack pipe down. Russia's economy in 1997 and today have almost nothing in common. Yeltsin was propping
    up the ruble forex rate with the GKO pyramid scheme. The grossly overvalued ruble resulted in an import flood shutting down Russian
    production lines. Thanks to the 1998 default and the massive ruble devaluation there was a massive recovery stimulus. Russian manufacturing
    grew by 11% in 1999 and the GDP followed with a 10% growth in 2000. Primakov laid the ground work for abandoning the mentarist BS implemented
    by Sachs and the shock therapists and thankfully Putin followed through. But clearly the monetarists were not fully purged from the system
    and have made a comeback in the form of the Nabiullina faction that took over the CBR and the clowns in the Ministry of Finance. They really
    should just let Kudrin back since that is the dogma they are peddling.


     Internal issues are Russia biggest threat so they need to fix their own structure first.

    These 5th column threats don't require the sacrifice of military security. You are totally lost on this point. For you it is always a zero sum.
    You think all other parts of the GDP should be reduced to bolster 5th column defeat efforts. It does not work that way.


     Last time Russia was attacked directly by another state was WWII.  Last time Russia was attacked internally with a near civil was was 1999 early 2000's with second Chechen conflict.  During the 90's, other regions of Russia were trying to leave as well all because of its shit economics of high debt and little growth.

    You are just making things up. During the 1990s there were payment arrears and barter trade, not debt and deficits. Chechnya's problems
    have zero to do with any excessive borrowing. This nonsense you are spewing tells me that you were a child during the 1990s and don't have
    a clue about the realities of the time. Really, do some reading first.

    As for WWII, your logic is that no war will happen because the last one was long ago. This is infantile nonsense. It amounts to "proving" that
    no war will ever happen again.


    When they were spending 4% on military budget, they ended up with 3T+ ruble deficit. If it is 6%, it would have been larger.  Instead, 3% gives them about 1T ruble deficit.

    You are clearly drinking the monetarist koolaid. The Chinese are not and most of NATO isn't either.


    You aren't going to convince most of us. You can just continue thinking we are all moneterist scumbags Retards with no knowledge of economics at all.

    Don't put words in my mouth, liar.
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1076
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:59 pm

    Kvs you mention name calling but it was you who name called you stated "All you clueless, opinionated windbags" I think that's name calling and I don't know why you came across all aggressive when people were just giving their opinion which they are entitled to. In fact opinionated windbags would fit perfectly with you because you are displaying such coming across as everything you say is gospel. I might not know everything about Russian economy but aren't I allowed an opinion? And aren't I allowed to agree with someone else's opinion even if that isn't the same as yours? This is a forum where ideas are shared. Nobody on this forum have any real power or say that's up to Russian government so I think there is no need for the aggressive name calling which was totally unprovoked
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1305
    Points : 1305
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  miketheterrible on Sat Aug 19, 2017 11:04 pm

    Ignore KVS. He thinks we are stupid. He thinks the Russians are stupid. Yet their economic activity proves him wrong so who gives a shit what he thinks. He will say how wrong we are even if we point out the obvious.

    Debt is good, military is all important, NATO is about to invade (contrary to reality) and Russian economics is all based upon magic and pixie dust contrary to their methods and activity.  And he will start insulting us first but say he didn't.

    Who gives a shit. He is a nobody like the rest of us.

    BTW KVS, just to let you know - Russia is heavily subsidizing chechnya. Why do you think they do? Just to keep them appeased that is why.
    avatar
    ZoA

    Posts : 14
    Points : 16
    Join date : 2017-08-20

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  ZoA on Sun Aug 20, 2017 12:19 pm

    Well that turned needlessly hostile. While I near 100% agree with KVS on his economic evaluation, and think he's fundamental right, his delivery is excessively belligerent. Bad delivery and hostility aside his is correct that fundamental problem of Russia is not corruption, sanctions or any of such common excuses. Actual problem is strict adherence of RCB and Russian government to neoliberan austerity dogma that is destroying Russian economy and undermining Russian defence capabilities. He is also right abut imminent treat of NATO attack. While full on attack on mainland Russia is somewhat less likely, attack on Russian exclaves is extremely probable. At any point NATO could invade Kaliningrad expecting to grab it in a day or two of fighting, leaving Russia with fait accompli of accepting the loss of the exclave, or escalating to WWIII by attempting to retrieve it. This could be combined with simultaneous Japanese invasion of isolated Sakhalin islands and Uki escalation to further force Russia to back of from recapturing the Kalinmingrad. People should not forget what pack of raving rusophobic lunatics are dominating both Republican and Democratic partys in US, as well dominating most of US officer core. Those people are deeply irrational, militant and aggressive, and can't be counted on to behave in predictable rational matter.


    On to MiG-35 isue.

    IMHO it is good decision to buy those because Russian air force is excessively heavy. Su-35, Su-30, Su 24, Su 34 are overkill in many combat scenarios Russian aerospace forces are likely to participate. MiG-35 as lighter plane burns less fuel per hour of flight can provide significant savings in many situations. Take for example initial Russian operation in Syria that was mostly abut bombing Al-quead and other salafists in Latakia and around Idlib. Most targets were less then 200km from airbase and most sorties composed of dropping 2 to 4 bombs with typical mission bomb/missile load of 1t or less. Were heavy fighters and attack planes like Su-24, 34, 30 really needed for that? Or that entire early phase could be just as well, but more economically, executed by same number of MiG-35 fighters? I say yes. Only in later phases when bombing started to focus on attacking ISIS deep in Syria's hinterland could be use of heavier longer range fighter-bombers be justified.

    Back at USSR they understood that and had MiG-29 as front-line aviation as not to waste fuel and flight hours of heavier frames on tasks that could be done by more economical lighter planes. But much like other smart things form USSR this too was forgotten by liberal knowitalls

    Mig-35 has additional advantages besides flight economy. As reconfigurable two seater it can be used as trainer, as flaying command post similarly like Su-30, or as a single seater with longer range when one pilot is replaced with internal fuel tanks without degrading aerodynamic like one would do with external fuel tanks. Also MiG-35 is smaller so more of them can be squished in airbases with limited parking and shelter space, and is easier to camouflage and hide.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1305
    Points : 1305
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  miketheterrible on Sun Aug 20, 2017 3:23 pm

    Can anyone of you guys point out to me how their economic method is destroying Russia's economy?

    Might I remind you, Russia is growing by 2%, industrial production has increased dramatically, import substitution is expanding Russia's diversification and unemployment is still very low.

    And also about its military?  Let me remind you that Russia has been seeing procurement expansion not seen since soviet union. New jets, tanks, ballistic missiles and ships in design and even in use. Expansion of air force, ground force and bomber fleet with new Tu-160's in production, Borei submarines, Su-57 development, etc?

    Even with a low budget, they managed to modernize a huge portion of Russia's military in a rather short time. Since SAP-2020, it was only until 2014 were we saw real development.

    Sorry to say, but Russia's austerity is working. It hasn't worked for many because they had little excuse to produce for themselves (Greece) but so far, Russia's economic performance has been stellar.  Only issue is the high interest rates. Rest seems to be solid.

    Even if Russia made its defense budget at 30% of GDP, they still couldn't protect Kaliningrad fully and would have to retake it, or bomb it all to oblivion. NATO has the numbers were they can drive through on all sides. It is mainland Russia were it is impossible, even right now when Russia is less prepared. Ukraine isn't a threat, as they know the rest of Ukraine, in east, are not sympathetic to Kiev. Even if Kiev controlled spots.

    But we are getting off topic here, and there is so much hysteria that it is sickening. I love how you guys proclaim Russia is destroying itself in one post, but go on to say how they are strengthening in another, being contradicting depending how you see fit in a debate.
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2504
    Points : 2542
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  franco on Sun Aug 20, 2017 3:36 pm

    thumbsup

    Now in poor old KVS's defense doesn't he live in western Canada surrounded by all them Ukies Wink

    Sponsored content

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:28 pm