because VVS counts in Su-34 and MiG-31 in fighter categories ?
What is that page supposed to prove?
Su-27s, Su-34s, Ka-52s, A-50s, MiG-29s, An-124s, Mi-28s, Ka-50s, Su-25s, MiG-31s, Mi-26s, An-72s, Il-76s, Su-24s, Tu-22M3s, An-26s, An-22s, Mi-8s, An-12s, Tu-95MSs, Su-39s, Il-78s, Il-80s, and Mi-24s are all fighters are they?
do I get it correctly that MiG-35 is better then old models but new models are worse then MiG-35? Thus fighter when evolution reached the top level?
No.
Applying MiG-35 level upgrades to MiG-21s and MiG-23s would be limited in effect because those aircraft did not have the capacity for more weapon pylons than about 4 for decent sized weapons. The MiG-35 can carry 8 weapon pylons and also has twin engine safety in its design.
The MiG-21 has a relatively small wing so its manouver performance is not huge, but was necessary at the time to get supersonic performance.
The MiG-23 used complicated and relatively heavy swing wing technology to combine short field operational performance with high speed flight.
The more sophisticated wing of the MiG-29 allowed short takeoff run with easy supersonic performance...
If all you had were MiG-21s or MiG-23s then it would make sense to try to upgrade them... often times it would not matter what the platform is... all it does is take an AAM to a position in the sky to launch at an intruder... it does not matter if it is a MiG 31 or a MiG-15... if the enemy were trying to overwhelm your defences with some sort of swarm attack then the more aircraft you could get airborne and launching missiles the better, but right now it makes rather more sense to build new MiG-35 aircraft that to raise the dead MiGs and adapt them to new more modern engines and radars... the cost of redesigning a MiG-23 for an AL-41 engine, plus a new radar, and new missiles would not be that much cheaper than just building new MiG-35s...
I agree that Su-57 is not going to be most numerous Russian fighter but price is 2xSu-30SM or 3xSu-34 only. They wiell be procured 300-400 in total so why not 200 Su-57 once they will be retired? First of all MiG-35 was not done on MoD request. Looks like it was not planned by MoD.
Over the next decade or two they might end up making as many as 500 Su-57s... but I really doubt it unless the price comes down... because to be honest I think the Su-35 and MiG-35s will be more than enough to deal with F-35s.... as they mature with new radars and new missiles their external carriage, while terrible for RCS is good for combat performance.
They took the opportunity to test a prototype in Syria, but I would suspect it makes more sense to just export conventional fighters and keep the good stuff for themselves... it can be the boogeyman that makes the west spend too much on "defence"...
In the near future the Indians will want a serial model to play with... so give them a downgraded export version and they can spend money "upgrading it" with French and Israeli systems and Russian engineers can look at what they come up with and decide if it is useful for Russia... I rather suspect the Indians might want to develop a new super long range AAM for the new fighter too... which would benefit Russia in the same way that the Brahmos modification of the Yakhont that turned an antiship missile into a land attack and anti ship missile... the technology was retrofitted to Onyx and likely Granit and other Russian missiles... likely including Kh-32 and Zircon... so smiles all round there for Russia...
Why technology is to be wasted? Rd-33 (pr its modification) is going to power Skats, avionics, material can be used in new programmes.
Going to be used when?
All through the 1990s they were going to spend money on UAVs... it really was not until 2008 that they actually sat up and realised that UAVs were actually useful for recon... and while there were dozens of mockups of UAVs at every show in the 1990s and early 2000s... nothing actually worked until money was actually spent and models actually bought...
If you don't buy systems then the designers and makers don't make any money to invest in next gen models...
Wait too long like with the Mi-28A and the whole thing takes ages because everything is already obsolete and needs to be redeveloped from scratch...
If the current MiG-29M was the one that flew in the late 1980s its performance would be obsolete and I would agree with you... its CRT screens were state of the art then but would be heavy space wasting crap by now...
This has nothing to do with my question. Still valid: which NATO countries gave up design of new fighters and decided to keep 80s designs after 2040?
When the F-35 is revealed to be the useless unstealthy crap it is... all of them... especially in 5 years when photonic radar means there is no stealth anymore so long range ARH missiles can be used against B-2s at max range and still get kills... it no longer makes sense to compromise the design for stealth... sure make it aerodynamic... but don't waste too much time or money on making it stealthy... spend more money on subsonic high capacity airframes that can carry lots of small self defence missiles to shoot down these long range missile threats... Morfei...
From all Russian sources there are 3 programmes active: MiG-41 or new VSTOL fighter. Not sure if 6gen fighter will be one of them or on top.
MiG-41 is an interceptor and would have totally different requirements from a fighter/bomber.
If MiG are taking part in the VSTOL fighter it will likely be part of the programme for the light 5th gen fighter, so the situation would be very much a mirror of what Sukhoi is doing... heavy stealth fighter... Su-57, with heavy high tech non stealthy fighter (Su-35 with Su-57 like Avionics testing), and heavy lower cost non stealthy fighter (Su-30)... plus they are building the medium range strike aircraft... Su-34.
MiG will be lead on the Light/medium Stealth fighter, which will now be a STOVL model in collaboration with Yak, while also the medium non stealth fighter (MiG-35s whose avionics will be the basis for the new 5th gen fighters systems) and super high speed interceptor MiG-41 replacement for the MiG-31.
Both will likely also be making UAVs and UCAVs...
I'd say 700 battle worthy (both design tech and service life). But true they are close to this numbers. So no MiG-29 but MiG-29SMT, not Su-27 but Su-27SM3 for example.
The MiG-29s and Su-27s likely will be replaced in service by MiG 35s and Su 35s.
There will according to available data ~600 units are either already there or contracted. There are still 7 years to build and contract remaining 100+
Still not seeing these 600 units you are talking about...
I agree. To me export is the main reson for any MiG-35 talks.
Would you say the same about the Mi-28N and Ka-52... one for domestic use and one for export... except that each design has advantages and so both designs are used for different roles within the Russian Army... but their performance is very similar and they actually use the same weapons... isn't that a waste?
There are ongoing contracts for Su-30 and 35, so they will keep coming.
Which means short of the revelation that F-35s run rampant in Syria and destroy S-300 and S-400 systems and any Su-35s that approach, then they probably wont make thousands of Su-57s...
They better have more resilient plans, otherwise they will never manage to get a long term development accomplished. Sensibility analyses need to be performed and a solution that fits several scenarios chosen.
If they are designing their F-35 they need to ensure that the compromises to make it STOVL do not make the STOBAR and conventional land based models are not fucked up by awkward aerodynamics that really don't suit supersonic area rule shaping...
A modern fighter radar in the West can cost ca. 10 million... this is half the price you would expect from a complete light fighter in Russia. Sadly don't have prices for similar systems in Russia, but you an imagine AESAs are not going to be cheaper than previous radars in the short and medium term.
They will be making billions of AESA radar elements... if they can unify the design and use them in all radars in all platforms the enormous mass production will effect price and mass production issues and could make them rather affordable...
If you avoid making them because they are "too expensive" then that is what they will stay...
One of those enormous radar arrays used by S-300 and later SAM systems would use tens of thousands of emitters each... if you are making so many they become quick and cheap to make then an aircraft radar becomes not just affordable, but attractive... in fact imagine an aircraft skin made entirely of radar transcevers...
This was BTW the reason for the crude BVR performance of the MiG-29s according to Soviet doctrine, they were thought to be guided towards the targets by ground command, so not inventing nothing new here.
Hahahahahahaha.... love it... crude BVR performance... and in the 1980s when it was operational... the Sea Harrier had Sidewinders... the F-16 had Sidewinders... the British land based Tornado had a British version of Sparrow, the F-15 peak of western technology at the time had Sparrows, the German F-4s and Tornados had Sparrows... the MiG-29 had R-27s... but interesting enough it defeated F-15s in BVR combat tests in Germany... as well as using the R-73 to defeat the F-16 with Sidewinders too...
Certainly the MiG-29 had nothing like the radar mode performance of the F-16 or F-15 which had very sophisticated systems at the time, but the fact that they lost both BVR and WVR combat to the German MiGs... which didn't even have the long range R-27E model missiles and only had R-27R... they didn't even have R-27P models the Soviets had at the time which would have been devastating against NATO fighters...
Imagine the start of combat... a flight of F-15s detect some MiG-29s at long range with their big powerful radar and so they close and launch a Sparrow each because their super radars can detect all four MiGs in the group... and all of a sudden all four F-15s explode... the signal the radars on the F-15s used to paint the MiGs for the Sparrows to home in on is used by the anti radiation model R-27P missiles, which are faster and longer ranged than the Sparrows, so when the MiGs get painted ready for the F-15s to launch their Sparrow attack the MiGs can fire their R-27P missiles and turn away because those Alamos are homing in on the signal coming from the noses of those F-15s and the only way the F-15s could save themselves would be to stop tracking the MiGs... which means those Sparrows will not hit anything... they had no capacity to re-acquire targets after a target was lost...
But that is OK because not being able to use Sparrow means getting in close and dogfighting because NATO pilots are really well trained and would win in a dogfight... except experience with German pilots showed that high off bore sight R-73s with helmet mounted sights made dogfighting suicide...
Not sure though that technology will bring back the cannon fights as a predominant form of combat. And if so, DEW should also be counted on and not only the 30 mm rounds. Very difficult to know what of the possible disruptive technologies in development will come first.
You wont know till real combat whether those missiles will be missiles or hittiles... but guns usually keep working... especially with the Russian advantage in TVC jet engines... the MiG-29 excelled in gun combat... look at the target and select him using your helmet mounted sight... which locked your close range dogfight radar mode and your IRST sensor and then just pull the trigger and manouver around to point your nose at the target... the computer will fire the gun when it calculates the rounds will hit.
During testing the computer usually fired 3-7 rounds but the targets were being destroyed... the designed later said if he had known it was going to be that effective he would have halved the number of ready to fire rounds of ammo.
6-7 tons empty? Why? For instance a fighter with 1 x izd 30 would have the same T/W ratio of Su-57 with empty weight slightly above 9 tons, and we talk about the absolute best T/W ratio around. Such plane could have acceptable payload and range, I am inclined to think, because I have done the effort of researching a bit on that. Internal payload roughly halved yes, but still dangerous
Because during development it will gain weight and MTOW needs to be below 18 tons just to get a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio.
TVC still provides most of the advantages of two engine fighters, only roll moment is missing, but again the force arm in that case is very small compared to that of the ailerons so you are not loosing so much, in case of loss of aileron control you could do almost the same with differential deflection of canards or elevators unless air speed is rigorously zero. Still, the most valuable contributions of TVC for turning and trimming are there.
The whole point of TVC is to leave normal flight where conventional control surfaces are useless anyway...
A WWI or WWII fighter feared the stall because when you stall a plane you become predictable and can be shot down easily because they know exactly where to aim... with a modern TVC aircraft you love the stall because with pure engine thrust you can still point your weapons and main sensors directly at the target for a fast kill.
An AAM has solid rocket fuel propulsion that burns at a fixed rate... if it burns the first few seconds of that fuel turning 180 degrees to attack a target behind you then its top speed is never going to approach what it would be if fired forward at a target in front because those crucial first seconds when it should be accelerating to top speed it is instead turning hard and overcoming its forward momentum...
Pulling hard on the flight stick and launching the missile backwards means much less turning for the missile so it arrives on target faster...
Regarding the F-16, its continuous development and application to roles well beyond the planed ones are only proof of a extraordinarily successful design philosophy and airframe. Why to use a plane which is expensive to purchase and operate when most missions can be performed by the F-16?
If you deduct the cost of developing the F-16 and just made more F-15s they would have saved a lot of money because the F-16 ended up costing as much as the expensive planes they were supposed to replace.
To avoid confusion here : VVS website you can look up that VVS includes MiG-31 as fighter and Su-34 s fighter bomber.
Below you have number of fighters delivered to Russian armed forces including Navy aviation and Su-34
And also includes navy fighters and Yak-130 trainers... do you really think the VVS official meant to include Navy planes and VKKO planes and training aircraft as well as strike aircraft when talking about fighters... because I doubt it.
The Su-34 is not a fighter bomber... it is a strike aircraft... and would not be used as a pure fighter.
But if Su-30SM is 2bl rub why to replace with similarly priced MiG-35? just for fun?
MiG-35 is comparable to an Su-35... if Su-30SMs are so wonderful why are they bothering with Su-35s?
Why is the US imposing sanctions on China for buying Su-35s and S-400s and India for buying S-400s but not for buying Su-30MKIs?
please try to read with understanding here: MiG-35 is a good fighter but for internal Russian needs came in wrong moment.
It has come at the perfect moment... they need to replace quite a few MiG-29s and lots of places have Flankers that don't even operate with half fuel tanks full and perhaps 2-3 wing pylons with ordinance on them... total waste of money and fuel.
BTW Russian MoD talks ks about closing Su-30SM lines in 2022. and what to do with production capacities. Su-35 nd S-57w ill be procured. Why would worry if number of fighters would get about saturation?
If they are only making 6 MiG-35s then they will need to keep the Su-30 production going much longer... unless it is the Su-30 that is the stopgap aircraft and now that the MiG-35 is coming on the scene it is not longer needed...
I will tell you a secret. Avionics is built in open architecture /modular. You dont need to reinvent everything form scratch. This saves time and enormous effort.
Great, so you just doubled the price of everything because everything needs a cheap simple alternative... so you can have expensive and cheap options...
6 MiGs were contracted what Sukhois have to do with that?
Sorry, you were not being clear... I thought when you put Russia: 6 pieces, you meant Russia was developing 6 different aircraft for the same fighter job... ie Su-27SM, Su-30, Su-35, Su-57, MiG-29SMT, MiG-35, Su-34, and MiG-31/41... forget it...
Then why Tupolev is building bombers? and Kamov exclusively ship-borne helos?
That is not politics... that is a proven track record in the field... and building on hard won experience...
VSOTL can start in STOL mode 1/3 distance (with landing gear arresters Yak-141 could 70-80m, without 120m) and land vertically.
J-39 needs 500m takeoff/600m landing.
Of course this doesnt count. ships then longer, the heavier and the more expensive then they are cheap as dirt.
When you say STOVL aircraft are more flexible and can operate anyway you are lying because when they operate from Helicopter spots they have worse than helicopter performance... you'd be better off with a Ka-52K.
In which case the claim they are flexible and that can operate from anywhere is bullshit.
in wiki yu can find that Su-34 is considered "front aviation" but PAK-FA is as well front aviation
Su-24 was not part of DA, it was part of FA, so it makes sense that the Su-34 replacement would be FA too, but that doesn't make it a fighter...
you're right Putin is emotional like 13year's girly and OAK if full of incompetent aersopace engineers
It is clear that someone who has his ear supports the idea... no great surprise... they found funding for the Yak-41 as well, but it didn't make it into service either.... and all the research and development went to lockheed martin to create the F-35 so it was an excellent investment in throwing a spanner in the American colossus...
When the Air Forces of Europe get their 150 million dollar F-35s I am sure Yakovlev will be smiling...
Im so glad I have you and GB to get the right perspective
The Soviets went down that road and it is a dead end... I have seen nothing that would make me change my mind in terms of new technology or special new materials.
Perhaps a pulse jet engine of twice the power of a normal conventional engine... and an anti grav system might be the eventual solutions...
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
