Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+63
gbu48098
x_54_u43
Big_Gazza
wilhelm
TMA1
zepia
lyle6
Backman
mnztr
lancelot
The-thing-next-door
Sujoy
KoTeMoRe
Singular_Transform
Tsavo Lion
thegopnik
SeigSoloyvov
dino00
GunshipDemocracy
ATLASCUB
miketheterrible
Admin
Rodion_Romanovic
Hole
marcellogo
GarryB
LMFS
Svyatoslavich
OminousSpudd
Rmf
hoom
Azi
PapaDragon
kvs
eridan
Isos
Cyberspec
rtech
Flanky
medo
sepheronx
GJ Flanker
EKS
AlfaT8
Book.
Mike E
Flyingdutchman
Stealthflanker
mack8
Werewolf
magnumcromagnon
collegeboy16
sheytanelkebir
CaptainPakistan
Firebird
KomissarBojanchev
Viktor
gloriousfatherland
Austin
SOC
TR1
George1
Ogannisyan8887
67 posters

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 450
    Points : 442
    Join date : 2016-04-06

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Azi Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:17 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    I disagree... its power to weight ratio is less than the Su-57. If you go for too light an aircraft you end up with something that is useless for the job.
    I'm sorry...my mistake! I didn't mean the engines of Mig29/35, i mean the whole concept compared to Su-27 family or Su-57. The gap between F-15 family and F-16 family is much wider, than Mig-29 compared to Su-27.

    I'm with you, that you can't use Yak-130, except for light strike roles.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30610
    Points : 31140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB Mon Apr 20, 2020 12:52 pm

    I would suggest to start from the available or next to be introduced engines that Russia would possiblyuse: there is a medium sized engine that sports the same tech level of Al-51?
    Without this a two engined light fighter seems me a far fetch...

    The RD-33 engines of the MiG-29 started at 8 tons thrust each and are now at about 9 tons thrust each, and comments on the MiG-29 thread suggest they are looking at 11 ton thrust engines pretty soon... which should be plenty for a fighter with a normal takeoff weight of 18-20 tons.

    Next the form: canard deltas have an undeniable advantage if someone want to spare weight without compromising performances too much.

    The soviets tested and rejected that layout decades ago... Ye-8 variant of the MiG-21 for instance...

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

    Not really... the wing root mounted L band AESA radar for the Su-35 and Su-57 are for detection of stealth targets... it lacks the vertical depth for tracking targets... it is only one array element high...

    They had Epulet (Shoulder board) radars for small fighters or fighters with nose air intakes, but only for air to air and only for short range...

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

    Well indeed... of course the S-70s might be sent forward to take down AWACS and JSTARS and any inflight refuelling tankers that might be near the line of engagement, while the radar silent Su-57s monitor any aircraft responding to them and attack them in turn.

    The gap between F-15 family and F-16 family is much wider, than Mig-29 compared to Su-27.

    I am not so sure. The F-16 is very comparable to the MiG-29 in terms of weight and performance and is rather more expensive too.

    The F-16 is 12 tons to about 19 tons and the MiG-29 is 15 tons to 18 tons... regarding normal and takeoff weights... which suggests no real advantage for the F-16.

    Compared with the MiG-21 at about 10 tons max weight... but these days that is just too light.

    I'm with you, that you can't use Yak-130, except for light strike roles.

    It sounds like a clever use of resources to use your fighter trainer as a light strike or a light fighter aircraft.

    They are so expensive... but a blind bombing system like the Gefest & T system operating at 10km altitude would make sense, but actual combat with enemy aircraft would not be a good use... the extra systems needed to make them effective would also make them even more expensive and also they are not disposable because you need them to train new pilots in times of war and times of peace.

    Better off developing a simple drone that could carry lots of wing mounted heavy AAMs on a huge wing and have the fly above the battlefield launching missiles at enemy aircraft or cruise missiles... cheap, simple, can use as recon as well...
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 467
    Points : 473
    Join date : 2012-08-02
    Age : 52
    Location : Italy

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  marcellogo Mon Apr 20, 2020 7:37 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The RD-33 engines of the MiG-29 started at 8 tons thrust each and are now at about 9 tons thrust each, and comments on the MiG-29 thread suggest they are looking at 11 ton thrust engines pretty soon... which should be plenty for a fighter with a normal takeoff weight of 18-20 tons.

    Well,if they can get them fast enough, it has definitely a go on from me.
    Still I will vouch for a full 5gen engine like Al-51 over any increased thrust derivative of an already existing engine.

    The soviets tested and rejected that layout decades ago...  Ye-8 variant of the MiG-21 for instance...

    Mind to enlighten us more about such an evaluation? It would surely be of extreme interest
    Decades ago, even in W. Europe itself, they were considered a sort of extreme configuration, good for certain roles but in overall quite risky but now all the fighters produced here are canard deltas because in the meantime solutions were found to overcome the initial design limitations.



    Not really... the wing root mounted L band AESA radar for the Su-35 and Su-57 are for detection of stealth targets... it lacks the vertical depth for tracking targets... it is only one array element high...
    They had Epulet (Shoulder board)  radars for small fighters or fighters with nose air intakes, but only for air to air and only for short range...

    Certainly if they are for detection of stealth targets they are a must have for any future fighter plane.
    What I meant is that even a small plane can carry them without experimenting the same loss of performance it would happen in case of a conventional nose mounted one (compared to the ones mounted on larger models, obviously.
    Surely I never though of not putting a conventionally fitted radar also.



    Well indeed... of course the S-70s might be sent forward to take down AWACS and JSTARS and any inflight refuelling tankers that might be near the line of engagement, while the radar silent Su-57s monitor any aircraft responding to them and attack them in turn.

    Also there, it certainly would but a smaller yet faster UCAV i.e. a pilotless version of what i was talking above would be even better for the role.

    With USAF bound to buy a score of F-35 flying bricks in the next 15-20 years they have a great window of opportunity for a light A2A UCAV in my humble opinion.





    I am not so sure. The F-16 is very comparable to the MiG-29 in terms of weight and performance and is rather more expensive too.
    In a certain sense the original F-15 was even more extreme of the same F-16 as it sported very powerful engines but a light frame.



    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30610
    Points : 31140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB Tue Apr 21, 2020 9:35 am

    Well,if they can get them fast enough, it has definitely a go on from me.
    Still I will vouch for a full 5gen engine like Al-51 over any increased thrust derivative of an already existing engine.

    Well that is the rub... they have been working on these engines for quite some time, so the 11 ton engine has been mentioned recently as being available soon, but that might mean testing in 2-3 years time and perhaps getting on to a service aircraft in 5-6 years time... but building a brand new engine from scratch will take 10 years minimum and that assumes proper regular reliable funding... you can bet your ass half way through some pencil pusher will say... do we need another new engine... if there is no one sensible like you or I nearby to say yes there might be problems...

    Mind to enlighten us more about such an evaluation?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_Ye-8

    The Soviets had plenty of experience with deltas and canards... their first canard aircraft was the MiG-8 built and tested during WWII as a stall proof design for training... the idea being the first surface to stall was the nose mounted canards which made the nose drop down which is the standard recovery manouver for a stall... they also built and tested lots of deltas... including the Analog... a modified MiG-21 used for testing the wing shape of the Tu-144.

    Decades ago, even in W. Europe itself, they were considered a sort of extreme configuration, good for certain roles but in overall quite risky but now all the fighters produced here are canard deltas because in the meantime solutions were found to overcome the initial design limitations.

    Aircraft design includes a component of fashion... after the Americans saw the MiG-25 they copied it with their F-15 too... the design requirements seemed to dictate that layout and form. In the case of the Space Shuttle the Americans spent 2 billion dollars in the 1970s (15 thousand dollars at that time would buy you a nice house)... The Soviets wanted something to do pretty much the same thing so they adopted the shape though the actual design was fundamentally different.

    There were lots of canard designs through the 1980s and 1990s, but the Soviet/Russian ones never made it...

    [qutoe]Certainly if they are for detection of stealth targets they are a must have for any future fighter plane.
    What I meant is that even a small plane can carry them without experimenting the same loss of performance it would happen in case of a conventional nose mounted one (compared to the ones mounted on larger models, obviously.
    Surely I never though of not putting a conventionally fitted radar also. [/quote]

    Well I have been thinking about this too... with a flying wing design there might not be much in the way of a nose or fuselage for a large radar, yet most strategic bombers have decent nose mounted radars to find ground targets and watch out for aerial threats...

    I was thinking for a large strategic bomber the wing profile is going to get really thick really quick because it will be subsonic so the issue of setting back from the leading edge should mean plenty of space for vertical and horizontal elements for an AESA array, but something smaller like the S-70 that is supersonic might struggle.

    They have mentioned surface mounted antenna... so think of the wing made of lego blocks with the front line of blocks then the blocks above and below one notch back etc etc... so from front on you have a normal looking flat array but from side on you have a wedge.

    You could go a step further by mounting the antenna deeper inside the wing so you might have the centre of the array 10 rows flat and level and then start dropping them back to the shape of the wing and have the wing stick out in front of the antenna array like the radome on a normal radar provides an aerodynamic shape for what is essentially a flat nosed radar antenna.

    They might have fold down or retractable mounts or indeed side looking arrays... they might have arrays looking in every direction including up and down so it could enter a steep climb to scan the area ahead and then level off and be stealthy again... there are lots of solutions or ideas they could use...

    Also there, it certainly would but a smaller yet faster UCAV i.e. a pilotless version of what i was talking above would be even better for the role.

    S-70s are pilotless... and smaller would not be able to carry R-37M missiles to take out the AWACS and JSTARS aircraft from 300km... is the smaller UCAV faster than mach 6?

    With USAF bound to buy a score of F-35 flying bricks in the next 15-20 years they have a great window of opportunity for a light A2A UCAV in my humble opinion.

    Yeah, but if Russia invests in lots of A2A UCAVs then so will the Americans and that might cure their problems with the F-35... they might just buy 800 of them and use them to manage flights of 20 or more drones of different types each.

    Better to let them buy 3,500 F-35s... even without drones it is a good move for Russia economically... and the drones they do make can be exported to countries like Cuba and Venezuela and Iran if they want them.

    In a certain sense the original F-15 was even more extreme of the same F-16 as it sported very powerful engines but a light frame.

    That was a very specific and conscious choice because when they were designing the F-15 they thought the MiG-25 was what the F-15 was... a super fighter...

    Obviously we know now it was a super interceptor and was rather good for recon as well, but the Americans didn't know that so they took the MiG-25s shape... because that is what they assumed would be the best shape for the job, and then they made the most powerful engines they could make and used them and the most expensive avionics and gave it every capability they could think of to make it the best...
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2907
    Points : 3062
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Cyberspec Sun Jun 28, 2020 6:49 am

    MiG LMFS according to Piotr Butowski....not sure what his source is

    at the bottom, comparison with MiG-35

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 LMFS-1

    GarryB likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30610
    Points : 31140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:43 am

    Interesting... but I would think the canard is a bit redundant if it has TVC engines... especially when it seems to have horizontal tail surfaces too... and I am wondering if it will have vertical fins at all...

    I am also surprised they have never gone with air intakes above the wing to prevent FOD on take offs and landings from rough airstrips...
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2604
    Points : 2590
    Join date : 2016-04-09

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:27 pm

    GarryB wrote:Interesting... but I would think the canard is a bit redundant if it has TVC engines... especially when it seems to have horizontal tail surfaces too...  and I am wondering if it will have vertical fins at all...

    I am also surprised they have never gone with air intakes above the wing to prevent FOD on take offs and landings from rough airstrips...

    This is a very rudimentary drawing, assuming they actually build the thing. It would have vertical fins.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3887
    Points : 3889
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:28 pm

    Is that drawing new? I had seen this version:

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Lmfs-2017-line1

    Just reading Murakowskiy's comments about the latest news on aero studies for a new light fighter... fully agree with him. Specially now that we see how they are implementing a single informational space for the different armed services. In the VKS, it seems the Su-57 will act, at least in the near future, as a scarce high-end platform to ensure air superiority and coordinate other fighters. That will allow for lighter and cheaper fighters, in future probably unmanned, to provide the numbers needed. So a light fighter does not need such a powerful radar or avionics and can be built light, fast and nimble for A2A roles.

    Interesting... but I would think the canard is a bit redundant if it has TVC engines... especially when it seems to have horizontal tail surfaces too... and I am wondering if it will have vertical fins at all...

    The canard's main advantage in a modern plane is not necessarily to substitute the tail (tail in unstable planes actually adds lift) but to enhance the wing's function and to help balancing the plane's CoG in different flight regimes and loadings. Also I guess the drawing is a bit weird, using tail planes in addition to delta wing, that would be the first time I see such configuration.

    I am also surprised they have never gone with air intakes above the wing to prevent FOD on take offs and landings from rough airstrips...

    The MiG-29 had them and they were removed in the new versions. In exchange it has more fuel, which is also very important.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7325
    Points : 7474
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sun Jun 28, 2020 9:46 pm

    I'm surprised that 5th gen fighter aircraft don't all have intakes placed above the wing because it'll reduce RCS, reduce drag and increase weapon bay space by 100%. Just take the space taken up by the intakes, it'll effectively double the available space for AAM's, PGM's, etc.

    Also If I had it my way 5th gen weapon bay doors would be replaced with modular revolving bomb bay doors, which should reduce RCS, drag and complexity. Also it would be nice if the internal bomb bays had direct fuel channel/veins that led to the engine, in which internal bomb bay fuel tanks could be developed to increase flight duration (when range is the top priority) without increasing drag. Hopefully the Su-62/64 incorporates these ideas (as well as being a drone UCAV mothership command post).
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 6131
    Points : 6107
    Join date : 2016-11-07

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  miketheterrible Sun Jun 28, 2020 9:50 pm

    I dont think this will ever see the light of day.

    They been working on this longer than Su-57 and still nothing. In the end, it wont be inducted and I think Su-57 will remain the main contender for a fighter for Russia. Its price isn't even that high and its performance is a bit better than that of a Su-35. Russia isn't really pushing for a high number of air force pilots but more professional and better equipped. If this plane ever does come out, it will have to be cheaper than not only competitors on the market but also of their own other designs. Which I doubt will be the case. Su-30SM and Su-35 are not actually expensive and if they have overall better performance than this jet, then this jet is already DoA. These kind of jets are only much useful for smaller countries who need VLO design and be able to have powerful enough subcomponents to do the tasks at hand. Otherwise, no. I dont think so.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7325
    Points : 7474
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sun Jun 28, 2020 9:57 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:I dont think this will ever see the light of day.

    They been working on this longer than Su-57 and still nothing.  In the end, it wont be inducted and I think Su-57 will remain the main contender for a fighter for Russia.  Its price isn't even that high and its performance is a bit better than that of a Su-35.  Russia isn't really pushing for a high number of air force pilots but more professional and better equipped.  If this plane ever does come out, it will have to be cheaper than not only competitors on the market but also of their own other designs.  Which I doubt will be the case.  Su-30SM and Su-35 are not actually expensive and if they have overall better performance than this jet, then this jet is already DoA.  These kind of jets are only much useful for smaller countries who need VLO design and be able to have powerful enough subcomponents to do the tasks at hand.  Otherwise, no.  I dont think so.

    A light 5th gen fighter on the internationally arms market would sell much better than a heavy one, and a super light 5th gen trainer (a Yak-131 replacement) would sell even better, in which even countries like Cambodia and Myanmar could potentially afford a 5th gen aircraft. Lighter fighters would be much cheaper to purchase and to operate/maintain.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 6131
    Points : 6107
    Join date : 2016-11-07

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  miketheterrible Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:10 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:I dont think this will ever see the light of day.

    They been working on this longer than Su-57 and still nothing.  In the end, it wont be inducted and I think Su-57 will remain the main contender for a fighter for Russia.  Its price isn't even that high and its performance is a bit better than that of a Su-35.  Russia isn't really pushing for a high number of air force pilots but more professional and better equipped.  If this plane ever does come out, it will have to be cheaper than not only competitors on the market but also of their own other designs.  Which I doubt will be the case.  Su-30SM and Su-35 are not actually expensive and if they have overall better performance than this jet, then this jet is already DoA.  These kind of jets are only much useful for smaller countries who need VLO design and be able to have powerful enough subcomponents to do the tasks at hand.  Otherwise, no.  I dont think so.

    A light 5th gen fighter on the internationally arms market would sell much better than a heavy one, and a super light 5th gen trainer (a Yak-131 replacement) would sell even better, in which even countries like Cambodia and Myanmar could potentially afford a 5th gen aircraft. Lighter fighters would be much cheaper to purchase and to operate/maintain.

    Yes, maybe on international market. But Russian market not so much. Russian market fighter jets like MiG-35 is actually about as much if not more expensive than Su-35 while Su-35 has overall better performance. Hence why MiG-35 isn't selling. No one is really interested in it. They are interested in older MiG-29's due to their affordability and specs that more or less fall under that category. Su-30 on the other hand is in high demand as we see, yet is larger and theoretically more expensive. But it really isn't.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7875
    Points : 7859
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Isos Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:23 pm

    Su-30 between 50 and 70 millions $ for export. Mig-35 is around 40 millions $ if they don't lie.

    The same is not true for russian variants with mig-35 being not so cheap.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7325
    Points : 7474
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:33 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:I dont think this will ever see the light of day.

    They been working on this longer than Su-57 and still nothing.  In the end, it wont be inducted and I think Su-57 will remain the main contender for a fighter for Russia.  Its price isn't even that high and its performance is a bit better than that of a Su-35.  Russia isn't really pushing for a high number of air force pilots but more professional and better equipped.  If this plane ever does come out, it will have to be cheaper than not only competitors on the market but also of their own other designs.  Which I doubt will be the case.  Su-30SM and Su-35 are not actually expensive and if they have overall better performance than this jet, then this jet is already DoA.  These kind of jets are only much useful for smaller countries who need VLO design and be able to have powerful enough subcomponents to do the tasks at hand.  Otherwise, no.  I dont think so.

    A light 5th gen fighter on the internationally arms market would sell much better than a heavy one, and a super light 5th gen trainer (a Yak-131 replacement) would sell even better, in which even countries like Cambodia and Myanmar could potentially afford a 5th gen aircraft. Lighter fighters would be much cheaper to purchase and to operate/maintain.

    Yes, maybe on international market.  But Russian market not so much.  Russian market fighter jets like MiG-35 is actually about as much if not more expensive than Su-35 while Su-35 has overall better performance.  Hence why MiG-35 isn't selling.  No one is really interested in it.  They are interested in older MiG-29's due to their affordability and specs that more or less fall under that category.  Su-30 on the other hand is in high demand as we see, yet is larger and theoretically more expensive.  But it really isn't.

    But the problem with MiG-35 is the same problem the Kh-32 had...because of the abortion that was the Yeltsin 90's it's introduction has been heavily delayed. I remember MiG plants in the 90's had to diversify away from aerospace, they were forced with little to no choice to manufacture cutlery and silverware to make any money. In production/manufacturing, delays in introduction lead to cost overruns in real terms, and MiG-35's weren't the only victims of the 90's, the naval industry was hit much the same way. A from scratch design (with a lot of 5th gen tech matured from the PAK-FA) in a healthier more sane economy (compared to the 90's), combined with the fact the Ruble now has significantly less value than the Ruble had when MiG-35 design work was restarted, and should theoretically lead to more reasonable introduction timelines and more reasonable pricing/costs. Also MiG needs work up until MiG-41's will be introduced; spin-detonation engine technology will probably need 6-10 years before it's matured.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3887
    Points : 3889
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:50 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:I'm surprised that 5th gen fighter aircraft don't all have intakes placed above the wing

    They would not work at high AoA because the shadow of the fuselage would deprive them of the airflow. So that solution is used in aircraft for which maneouverability is not important, like very stealthy flying wing bombers and UCAVs, but not on fighters.

    Also If I had it my way 5th gen weapon bay doors would be replaced with modular revolving bomb bay doors, which should reduce RCS, drag and complexity.

    That sounds interesting, do you have some example?

    Also it would be nice if the internal bomb bays had direct fuel channel/veins that led to the engine, in which internal bomb bay fuel tanks could be developed to increase flight duration (when range is the top priority) without increasing drag.

    I remember discussing that and paralay said that was the case already in the Su-57. Of course it makes a lot of sense, especially if you have several bays that allow carrying the weapons needed for a CAP plus extra fuel, for instance.

    @miketheterrible:

    At the time they are ready with this new fighter they are supposed to be developing, highly autonomous unmanned combat fighters should be quite possible and I think that could change the VKS' calculation, because it would allow to increase the number of fighters in the air without needing to train many pilots and risking them in "not-so-good" machinery. Their operational cost would be much smaller too, because they would not need to train. That would encourage to use light, optionally unmanned fighters. A single platform could be developed both for the manned and unmanned versions, covering both domestic and export demand with minimum effort.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2604
    Points : 2590
    Join date : 2016-04-09

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:07 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:I dont think this will ever see the light of day.

    They been working on this longer than Su-57 and still nothing.  In the end, it wont be inducted and I think Su-57 will remain the main contender for a fighter for Russia.  Its price isn't even that high and its performance is a bit better than that of a Su-35.  Russia isn't really pushing for a high number of air force pilots but more professional and better equipped.  If this plane ever does come out, it will have to be cheaper than not only competitors on the market but also of their own other designs.  Which I doubt will be the case.  Su-30SM and Su-35 are not actually expensive and if they have overall better performance than this jet, then this jet is already DoA.  These kind of jets are only much useful for smaller countries who need VLO design and be able to have powerful enough subcomponents to do the tasks at hand.  Otherwise, no.  I dont think so.

    Yeah, I doubt they will ever produce these also.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30610
    Points : 31140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:12 am

    The MiG-29 had them and they were removed in the new versions. In exchange it has more fuel, which is also very important.

    Of course but they were secondary intakes... used during takeoffs and landings and presumably when more airflow is needed at low speeds perhaps...

    They also had their main air intakes underneath... quite visible to ground based radar...

    I'm surprised that 5th gen fighter aircraft don't all have intakes placed above the wing because it'll reduce RCS, reduce drag and increase weapon bay space by 100%. Just take the space taken up by the intakes, it'll effectively double the available space for AAM's, PGM's, etc.

    The engine trunks make sense because it creates an air tunnel and makes the body of the aircraft effectively a lifting body so the wings can be smaller and of lower drag.

    One design I liked was where the air intakes turned 90 degrees and under teh cockpit came together so the top lip of the intake is vertical and aligned with the centre of the fuselage and the space behind it is filled in for a large very deep internal weapon bay... but obviously that puts the air intakes in line with and directly behind the front wheel... moving the intakes further forward like an F-16s intake with the nose wheel mounted behind the intakes would make the aircraft sit too high...

    Also If I had it my way 5th gen weapon bay doors would be replaced with modular revolving bomb bay doors, which should reduce RCS, drag and complexity

    Revolving weapons systems are interesting but not so practical on smaller aircraft. Aircraft like the Tupolevs... the Bear, the Backfire and the Blackjack all have rotary launchers but their sizes... specifically their lengths limit what sort of ordinance they can carry... plus they would need to be smart wired and equipped...

    For instance the rotary launcher on the Backfire is designed for the Kh-15 which is less than 5.5 metres long. The Blackjacks rotary launcher is about 11.5m long so with weapons that are 6m long or 7.4m long the backfire can't carry either internally and the Blackjack can only carry one of each.

    If the Blackjacks launcher was say 18m long, it could carry two Kh-101/2s or three missiles that are less than 6m long... the point is that it would need wiring and load carrying points at the right spacing to carry such weapons.

    An important part of the design of the PAK DA will be a weapon carrying mechanism that can hold big long cruise missiles or even bombs like FAB-5000 and FAB-9000 but also the FOABs, but also be able to carry FAB-250s in large numbers and perhaps even smaller bombs too... it is going to be tricky...

    I suspect these mortar launcher designs they recently mentioned might be useful for smaller bombs... especially if... for long missions they could be loaded with bags of fuel instead... Instead of GLONASS guided 100kg bombs imagine command guided bombs that are launched vertically from the bomber as it flys at 10km altitude or higher to remain safe from ground fire and MANPADS with a rear and downwards looking radar scanning for targets and tracking the bombs launched and sending guidance commands to those cheap simple bombs to hit point targets on the ground.

    Command guidance is cheap and simple like TOR and Pantsir missiles, but is very accurate... accurate enough to shoot down bombs...


    They been working on this longer than Su-57 and still nothing.

    It was said several times by MiG officials that the light stealthy fighter was put on hold and all work and focus was directed at getting the PAK FA into service... well the PAK FA is going in to service so it makes sense to now shift focus on the light fighter.

    I also suspect a large percentage of these new light fighters will actually be produced as slightly scaled down drones too.

    I don't think Russia is going for an all stealthy fleet... just like they didn't go for an all nuke powered sub fleet either... in both cases it is just too expensive... so many jobs just need a cheaper simpler platform to just get the job done.... without a movie being made about it...

    Yeah, I doubt they will ever produce these also.

    Yeah, 10 years ago there was no way the Russians could make a stealthy fifth gen fighter like the F-22 either... so doubt away.

    Not everything has gone to plan and certainly not on schedule, but the basics seem pretty much on the money... this is not going to be an F-35 mistake... no one is saying they will make 3,500 of them and they will be better than the Su-57/F-22, and that it can replace all other types currently in service including aircraft used by allies.

    For Russia it would be a mistake to try to make their new light 5th gen fighter some sort of uber plane that will beat all others... with reasonable levels of stealth... enough to make them difficult but not enough to make them too expensive to buy or use... with modern sensors and weapons and linked in to the rest of the military like all their new stuff is... they might even be cheaper than many current fighters in use.

    It doesn't need to carry more payload, it doesn't need to fly across Russia without refuelling, it doesn't have to have the radar cross section of a grain of sand... it doesn't even need a huge radar. By the time it takes to the air the next gen radar could be ready and that on its own might be enough to make it dangerous... combined with the new weapons being developed I am pretty sure they could knock them out for less than 60 million each for the export market and probably half that for domestic use as a manned fighter and half that again as a drone.

    Good self defence avionics and eye watering manouver performance... which is why a drone version will be developed because the human body wont take 20-30 gs but a drone could do it...
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2907
    Points : 3062
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Cyberspec Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:47 am

    LMFS wrote:Is that drawing new? I had seen this version:

    My guess would be that it's an old drawing that they've recently released

    LMFS likes this post

    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2907
    Points : 3062
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Cyberspec Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:03 am

    Here's something more substantial....model of the LMFS getting tested in a wind tunnel at TsAGI....no canards Very Happy

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Eb0EP06UcAAm_qF?format=jpg&name=large
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 11437
    Points : 11507
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  PapaDragon Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:21 am


    Okay, now this looks like something that might actually be viable

    Looking at engine and stabilizer size it would definitely be smaller aircraft than Flanker, maybe even MiG-29 which would be logical, it's supposed to be budget supplement for larger fighters after all

    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2907
    Points : 3062
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Cyberspec Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:52 am

    Said to be roughly the same size as a MiG-29, maybe a bit smaller.

    Can't really tell if it's single engined or not?
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 11437
    Points : 11507
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  PapaDragon Wed Jul 01, 2020 12:15 pm

    Cyberspec wrote:Said to be roughly the same size as a MiG-29, maybe a bit smaller.

    Can't really tell if it's single engined or not?

    Smaller the better

    It has two engines one right next to another, you can tell by the way vertical stabilizer is mounted on the engine
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3887
    Points : 3889
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:54 pm

    That model has been around for a while, probably from some communication from TsAGI:

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 X0110

    Cyberspec likes this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7875
    Points : 7859
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Isos Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:22 pm

    No space for internal bays if it is smaller than mig29. But that still better than the mig-35.
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2907
    Points : 3062
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Cyberspec Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:08 am

    According to Piotr Butowski

    the fighter will be close in size to the MiG-35, its length will be 15.5 m, wingspan-11.5 m, maximum take-off weight-24.5 t. It is designed to reach speeds of 2M at high altitude and up to 1500 km / h at low altitude, with a range of 4000 km with suspended tanks.

    The combat load of 1500 kg will all be in one armament compartment, similar to the su-57, which has two of them.

    The fighter will be equipped with two 11-ton thrust engines, which will be a further development of the RD-33MK-35 model for the MiG-35. Previously, their name appeared as VK-10M.

    For avionics and weapons, continuity with the MiG-35 will be maintained, in particular, the LMFS will be equipped with a radar with AFAR "Zhuk-AME".

    Judging by its aerodynamic scheme, it is more of a maneuverable fighter, which did not focus on the range and high speed.

    According to Butovsky, the probability of ordering the LMFS of the VKS of Russia is low, since it was not in the GPV-2020, and most likely not in the GPV-2027. However, the VKS can purchase a small number of these machines for demonstration purposes in order to support exports. But even in this case, the funds of a foreign co-investor will most likely be sought


    Sponsored content

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:12 pm