Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Mikoyan LMFS

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24514
    Points : 25056
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 18, 2020 5:46 am

    Rafale don't have vectoring nozzles and destroyed a f-22 in dogfight.

    Which pretty clearly shows what shit dogfight aircraft the F-22 and F-35 probably are... they are stealth fighters that are supposed to fly high and supercruise around launching long range sniper shots at the planes of 3rd world countries and looking cool on magazine covers...

    Indian MKI couldn't engage paki jf-17 because they were outnumbered even if in 1 vs 1 su-30 would have won.

    A bit of a reversal isn't it... did having lots and lots of MiG-21s lead to the Arab Air Forces destroying Israel?

    Is the best tactic to build more light fighter planes than your enemy can build air to air missiles?

    The only single engined aircraft the Russians are looking at are all unmanned...

    Not weak at all. Pakistani jf-17 did the work against indian su-30 and mig-29 and mirages. They can be equiped with the same weapons as biger aircraft and newest radar allows them to use their weapons at max range.

    You can hardly base future purchases on one incident, but it is amusing you are claiming Iran should be in a very strong position in the ME region with their F-5 upgrades.... they should be cheap enough and could overwhelm any American or Israeli or Saudi force right?

    Russia gives spare parts for free maybe ? MKI is around 70 million and it doesn't even include spare parts and other things. No cheap at all.

    Very cheap... 8 billion dollars for 36 Rafale medium weight fighters... what is that... 222 million each... for a smaller lighter shorter ranged fighter?

    It wasn't my point. f35 at 130 million is cheaper than f-22 wich would cost today more than 200 million.

    An F-22 made in the US would be about 200 million because they made less than 200 of them. F-35 pretends to be much cheaper because they are spreading development costs over 3,500 aircraft that might never get built. When it was first suggested the F-22 was going to replace the F-15... they were going to make 1,500 of them.... then it got cut to 750... and then they just stopped production at about 189... if they did that to the F-35 they would be about 400 million each because they were very expensive to develop.

    The Su-57 is a Russian F-22 and they are paying about 40 million each... are you trying to tell me you think a single engined similar sized version would be cheaper but just as capable?

    A russian single engine jet will be cheaper than su-57.

    It could possibly be cheaper... it will be much much less capable and it wont be purchased by the Russian military so it does not matter how cheap it would be.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5295
    Points : 5287
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Isos on Sat Apr 18, 2020 8:30 am

    Well Garry I will just quote what you said in the mig-29 thread you wrote in the same time as this answer :

    GarryB in mig-29 thread wrote:Well actually I probably would go for the MiG... first of all it is fully multirole, but being a smaller lighter aircraft it should be rather cheaper to operate than the rather bigger Su-30.
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 412
    Points : 408
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Azi on Sun Apr 19, 2020 2:15 am

    Isos wrote:Are they stupid at mig? Every small country need a small single engine jet and they continue to develop twin engines while sukhoi takes all their client and China/USA are selling their single engine jets like little breads and taking all the clients.
    Disadvantage of single engine fighter...the combustion temperature of the engine is fu*king high! The engine of the F-35 is one of the hottest engines ever built. The engine parts are difficult to spot in front direction of F-35, but from behind it radiates like the sun.

    Two engines would generate enough thrust with lower temperature. Mistake of Mig-29/35...the plane is too powerful! The gap between Mig-35 and Su-57 is not really wide. So that's why they said something between Yak-130 and Mig-35 and that makes really sense.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24514
    Points : 25056
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 19, 2020 7:22 am

    Well Garry I will just quote what you said in the mig-29 thread you wrote in the same time as this answer :

    Smaller and lighter can be achieved without taking out an engine and making it a single.

    Of course if you make it too light it wont be able to do what you want it to do and you will need to spend more money on inflight refuelling aircraft because it won't be able to operate any reasonable distance with a payload of weapons.... it will be weapons and very short range or external fuel tanks and no weapons...

    Mistake of Mig-29/35...the plane is too powerful! The gap between Mig-35 and Su-57 is not really wide. So that's why they said something between Yak-130 and Mig-35 and that makes really sense.

    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.

    The Yak-130 is far too light to be considered for anything except the light strike role they will probably be using a drone for anyway.

    There is nothing you could do to a Yak-130 to make it in to a decent modern fighter that wont end up driving the price up to very similar to a medium sized fighter that could do a better job.

    AESA radars are expensive... self defence avionics and DIRCMS are not cheap either and adding all these things means you will need more engine power and the airframe is not big enough for all these additions which means you have to give up fuel so it will have zero range or carry a standard payload of as many external fuel tanks as will fit.

    The people saying LIFTS can double as fighters are just trying to sell more LIFTS... lead in fighter trainers are expensive so they try to justify the costs by pretending they can be fighters as well... they can't.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 268
    Points : 274
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  marcellogo on Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:20 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Well Garry I will just quote what you said in the mig-29 thread you wrote in the same time as this answer :

    Smaller and lighter can be achieved without taking out an engine and making it a single.

    Of course if you make it too light it wont be able to do what you want it to do and you will need to spend more money on inflight refuelling aircraft because it won't be able to operate any reasonable distance with a payload of weapons.... it will be weapons and very short range or external fuel tanks and no weapons...

    Mistake of Mig-29/35...the plane is too powerful! The gap between Mig-35 and Su-57 is not really wide. So that's why they said something between Yak-130 and Mig-35 and that makes really sense.

    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.

    The people saying LIFTS can double as fighters are just trying to sell more LIFTS... lead in fighter trainers are expensive so they try to justify the costs by pretending they can be fighters as well... they can't.

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

    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,

    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.



    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 412
    Points : 408
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Azi on Sun Apr 19, 2020 4:47 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 : 24514
    Points : 25056
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 20, 2020 9:22 am

    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 : 268
    Points : 274
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  marcellogo on Mon Apr 20, 2020 4:07 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 : 24514
    Points : 25056
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 21, 2020 6:05 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...

    Sponsored content

    Mikoyan LMFS - Page 16 Empty Re: Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:26 pm