Yours is one interpretation, mine is another, that is perfectly fine.
Politics comes in to it too unfortunately.
During the 1980s it was MiG that was dominant... part of the problem was that most of the Flankers built were sitting waiting for avionics to be made for them and there was quite a backlog. The MiG-29 and MiG-31 were in a more dominant position because the frontal aviation and PVO respectively were perfectly happy with these forces.
The end of the cold war and the loss of allies and soviet states close to HATO borders meant many front line fighters like the MiG-29 were suddenly not Russian any more and they had a higher proportion of Flankers which had not been exported to warsaw pact allies.
More fundamentally MiG was seen as communist and establishment, in much the same way as when Stalin left the picture lots of things changed just because that was the way Stalin did things.
There were no practical reasons for this... A MiG-29 is as good a plane as the Flanker was and for the vast majority of missions the MiG was more than enough.... and cheaper, but for political reasons they went for Flankers in a big way... helped obviously by their export success.
You have not been paying lot of attention then, even the Su-33 is being developed into multirole.
They are replacing old obsolete equipment and systems and replacing them with new to make them cheaper to operate and support. A dumb bomb aiming system is great for third world COIN ops, but can you honestly say Su-33s will be the first choice with two iron 500kg bombs to take out US carriers?
It is not yet over.
The bullshit they have been spouting about the MiG, it is probably not worth it... the MiG-35 is a new plane with new technology that wont be cheap. It will be cheap compared with French or American planes but that is not saying much.
Indias plans are domestic production of their own planes of their own design, in the long term MiG can't rely on them for their market going forward.
You are answering yourself, the MiG-35 is too close to the Su-57 in size and too apart in performance and systems commonality to make sense as a rational, economically efficient complement. This is what we are arguing from the beginning.
You are putting too much emphasis on size... the MiG-35 is vastly cheaper to operate than the Su-35, which is the aircraft it will be paired with (Su-30 actually).
When using Su-57s then MiGs would give away their presence...
Amidst the ongoing consolidation in the Russian industry the tendency will be that UAC Military will use a common base of suppliers both for MiG and Sukhoi products, otherwise how will you consolidate supply chain, quality etc. for both companies?
In that case there is no need to have both MiG and Sukhoi if their suppliers provide the same engines and the same radars and same components... you lose all competition and diversity and choice... UAC can then dictate to the Russian military what they can have instead of the other way around.
Plus half your contractors will go bust and stop developing and innovating.
And MiG and Sukhoi will cooperate increasingly. But if the best concept comes from Sukhoi, then MiG will have to swallow their pride and just do the job they are requested.
But also vice versa too... BTW the T-4M design Sukhoi came up with that was a Mach 3 medium bomber was crap and would have been an all titanium super expensive aircraft to buy and to operate. Tupolev instead replaced his mach 2 Tu-22 with the completely different but much more capable Tu-22M claiming it was an upgrade despite being a totally different design, but optimised for Mach 2 which was attainable and affordable, rather than Mach 3 which was not.
Some of the features of the Sukhoi aircraft went into the Tu-160, but again enormous amounts of money in purchase price and operational use was saved by making it mach 2 rather than mach 3 capable.
It is MiG that is trying to reheat the MiG-29, while Sukhoi already is almost done with the development of the Su-57 into 5.5G plus and has shown the roadmap into 6G.
Yeah, you are not paying attention... the MiG-35 is not their LMFS entry... it is their Su-35 equivalent. The Su-57 basically looks like a Su-35 with stealthy reshaping on a fundamental level, but there is no guarantee the MiG LMFS entry will have the same layout as the MiG-35.
The MiG-35 and Su-35 have excellent efficient and capable shapes in terms of aerodynamics, but they have had access to super computers and plenty of time to test all sorts of shapes and layouts and structures and materials... they might end up with an F-22 or a YF-23 or it might be something radical...
The MiG-35 and Su-35 and F-22 are all basically the same layout and planform of the MiG-25...
They have already the Okhotnik operating with the Su-57 and plan to start deliveries in 2024, while MiG needed 15 years for the MiG-35 and still are not done with it... better not making comparisons regarding the innovation potential of both companies don't you think?
Many of the issues with the MiG-35 probably revolve around the AESA radar and other issues that really do not relate to MiG... the sub contractors that work for MiG work for other companies too but the integration of a fighter AESA radar with fighter engines and fighter sized IRST etc etc is not going to happen on any platform other than a light fighter and for the moment what other platform will they have experience of doing that with?
The MiG-35 MiG was developing for India is not the same design they are making for the Russian AF... for a start it contains all Russian components... something that was changed in about 2014 for most Russian weapon makers.
How about we wait to see what the MiG-35 can do before we declare Sukhoi as being the best at everything.
Remember Klimov 3D thrust vectoring nozzles are genuine 3D nozzles... not 2D nozzles installed on an angle to simulate 2.5D thrust vectoring.
But I will tell you following: the longer MiG resists abandoning the MiG-29 legacy and start from a more logical approach, the worst it will be for them.
You mean the way Sukhoi abandoned the Flanker legacy with the Su-30 and Su-34 and Su-35 designs in production?
I have said several times the plan was always to give the MiG-29 the most upgrades it could possibly manage in the same way they did it for rifles and tanks and Sukhoi heavy fighters... in fact Sukhoi make three heavy planes... a strike aircraft (-34) and a two seat only management/mini AWACS type plane (-30) and a single seater (35).
MiG went a different way with a carrier based model (KR), a cheaper single or two seat model (29M), and a more expensive single or two seat model (35).
In both cases they took the original design and massively upgraded every aspect as far as their technology allowed, but it is bad when MiG does it according to you.
I see it as following the plan.
You want to see the from scratch new design.... WTF do you think the LMFS is going to be?
Yeah name one thing where they are ahead of the Su-57 please.
When listed in a book in alphabetical order its entry will be first. As well as operational costs and purchase price... which is sort of what you want in a lighter fighter design.
Now tell me one thing the Su-35 is ahead of MiGs LMFS design... what do you mean that is not fair comparing a design we don't know everything about with a design we know nothing about... isn't that just as fair as comparing a 4th gen light fighter with a 5th gen medium fighter and demanding the light fighter to be better?
They could have at least substituted the Su-33.
Why? The Su-33s are not worn out and useless... having a couple on board the K along with a dozen new MiGs that also replace the Su-25s for landing training makes a lot of sense.
The MiG-35 is based on the same airframe developed for the M and K, it does not mean it is carrier ready. Folding wings and all that you know.
MiG have said the design is unified to allow all to be used from short takeoff on land and at sea. You do know when they have the same airframe that the folding wings they fit to the K model could just as easily be fitted to the M or the 35 model too.
Again bringing carp from days where they were knee deep in shit as if those decisions where voluntary...
Not blaming them for that, but will blame them repeatedly if they are stupid enough to put themselves back into the same position because of ignorance and false economies.
Really. The roadmap with all the engines derived from the izd. 30 has been already posted, who says there will be only one engine? What they are trying to avoid is to have two teams wasting time and money in parallel projects, while their helos and transport aircraft have no engines available... that is exceedingly stupid and I seriously doubt any decent manager would allow it.
Which suggests sharing information and technology across the companies would avoid such waste and lead to several new engines with much better capabilities.
It is amusing to think you believe that Saturn is the centre of the Russian engine universe, Klimov can make pretty good engines too and might already be working on new technology that Saturn never considered.
The fact that MiG are talking about a Mach 4.2 new MiG-41 suggests Klimov might have a product that can operate as a ramjet at the very least...
Nothing to do, the STOVL version of the light 5G fighter would be quite ok with one izd. 30 and a lift fan.
Yak proposed some designs with lift fans but never actually built any for production... perhaps that is for a reason?
Sounds like they sold Boeing a White Elephant... it certainly ruined the shape of the F-35 to make it a 5th gen Buccaneer instead of a 5th gen F-16 which is what they wanted.
(to be clear I love the Bucc... it is an amazing aircraft.... fully carrier capable and with a bucket of instant sunshine under each wing it was faster and longer ranged than the F-16... but it is a strike aircraft ONLY... and that is not what the F-35 was supposed to be.)
The lifting engines of the Yak had nothing to do with a cruising engine, they were just small high thrust single spool special purpose designs
The Yak-38 and Yak 141 used fixed twin lift jets that were dead weight in normal cruise flight, but that does not mean they could not have redesigned them to allow their use in normal cruise flight reducing thrust performance requirements for the rear engine in normal operation.
With modern digital automatic flight control systems they could probably get a brick to fly... western comments of Yak-38 landings and takeoffs led them to describe how solid and steady they were as if they were on rails... they had plenty of experience with automatic docking systems for space craft and space stations as well as flight control systems for aircraft.
The landing system for the Yak saved a lot of lives.
Single engine makes total sense for Russia because they already have a heavy twin engine plane and the corresponding propulsion solution so they will get huge savings in development, procurement and operation. Hope it is clear.
The monopoly domination in fighter aircraft by one design bureau and one jet engine maker would damage future development and procurement prospects.
If there is a shortage of new engines who gets priority... if there is a fundamental design problem with the engine your entire air fleet is in trouble.
Engine diversity is a good thing and smaller lighter engines are cheaper to design and make.
Having two 5th gen engines is better than having one.
The difference between a 4th gen fighters engine and a 5th gen fighters engine are no magic... once you work out what design you can use to turn an Al-31 into an Al-41, and then Al-51 or whatever this new engine will be called... the same changes and upgrades and materials can be used to change RD-33s too.
Besides, the extra speed is more a matter of engine configuration than pure thrust, we already discussed that topic and the available options, an ABVCE IMHO, which has nothing to do with fighter oriented engines but could perfectly use the core of the izd. 30.
It means serious changes in the fundamental design of the engine so that the engine can generate the required thrust at the necessary altitude and flight speed... so using one engine for light and medium fighter aircraft that might have flight speed limits of mach 2 and mach 2.5, and the same engine for a heavy interceptor that operates at mach 4.2 is obviously going to be a problem.
Look at their current efforts... they used different engines on both their high speed interceptors in the form of the MiG-25 and the MiG-31 despite both being limited to about Mach 2.8... there was no attempt to develop an engine that could be used on both the Flanker and the Foxhound... not just because of the different engine suppliers, but because the requirements were too different.
Medium fighters (Su-27) rarely go supersonic because it takes too much time and burns too much fuel and therefore radically reduces flight range.
For an interceptor they are big and heavy to carry the fuel they need to fly fast and speed is everything.
5th Gen heavy fighters might supercruise and zip around the place at mach 1.7 or something, but even they don't blast around the place in full AB at more than mach 3 and would never be intended to do so as their structure and design and the materials they are made of would not allow them to.
Having a specialist plane with a specialist role use a standard engine is a waste of time and energy and money unless the ultimate plan is for all the planes that use it also fly that fast... which is unlikely.
I agree that having unnecessary different engines is stupid... the NK-25 and NK-32 is ridiculous... especially made by the same engine company for the same aircraft design bureau for two aircraft that could have both used the same engine.
But this is different... the light fighter will be more of a swing fighter supporting ground forces or local forces rather than flying high and fast dominating the air space like the medium fighter would.
You have seen their roadmap the same as myself and read about their plans. You just need to meet the dots.
Plans are good, but all plans need to be flexible and change is a normal part of management.
No idea why you say that.
???? you are claiming the RD-33 is underpowered for a useful single engined fighter... the obvious solution for a single engined fighter would be to use a more powerful type. Personally I think the solution is to use two of the smaller lighter cheaper engines and get the best of both worlds...
The engine is not intended to be twin or single, it can be used both ways depending on the size of the platform that employs it.... and those light fighters using a RD-33 as a single engine fall in the category you call half arsed, we could agree on that.
So you admit there is a danger in being too light, that is good... but this is not for Russia... this is for cheap light fighters for poor countries so actually the RD-33 is actually ideal... in the same sense that putting it into an F-5 would essentially create an F-20 which would probably be your ideal light single engined fighter if you didn't have a bug up your arse about Klimov and MiG.