5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

The Russians could just repeat what the Soviet Union did with the Tu-160. Assign the work to MiG but force them to use the Sukhoi design.
Unlikely, possibly degrading, but not impossible.

I honestly can't see them achieving a level of obvious superiority in physical design to make that necessary.

Some nations simply cannot afford a heavy twin jet.

Most nations don't need nice stuff, but being able to afford or not often does not come in to it...

The F-35 is much cheaper to produce than the F-22. It is still an expensive crappy design though.

Both are vastly over priced, and neither really achieved their design goals of essentially being stealthy 5th gen F-16 and F-15 respectively.

Only US has tried, and they conflated every possible risk and additional, incompatible feature to the design, together with their best effort in making it as complex and expensive as possible.

Let us see what Sukhoi has thought. I don't see it impossible to do.

The US knew from the get go that the distributed production method makes it both cancel proof and eye wateringly expensive.... they knew that because that is what it was designed for with the C-17 production.

They knew they wanted a cheaper lighter fighter but used a system guaranteed to increase the price many times for no actual benefit... it didn't make it better or faster or improve quality... if anything it made it slower to make as well as much more expensive... but the morons at the Pentagon signed off on it anyway.

If any country could achieve an affordable light 5th gen fighter then it would be Russia  (or China)... but lets wait and see.

Yes, and now they are doing the same, dancing to the tune of the BS defence media of the US that has convinced them that F-22 sucks, it cannot be improved and therefore the NGAD is needed. There they go again without plan B and they hope the vendors are not going to rip them off. Of course, the political operators are already salivating at the new profits they can make, but the public opinion has already swallowed the bait in full.

Didn't they destroy all the production base and tooling for the F-22 to prevent more being made because that would threaten the F-35 production monopoly and kill their prize white elephant?

They did it for the F-14 to prevent parts being made for Iran...

TWR of 2 empty means TWR ca 1 at MTOW. In the Su-57 we do not have the empty weight but the estimations of 18-18.5 t seem reasonable. With engines of 18 tf the TWR empty comes pretty close to 2 doesn't it?

Isn't that just bullshit numbers manipulation... a thrust to weight ratio is the ratio between the thrust the engines produce compared with the weight of the aircraft at normal takeoff weight... TWR at max and empty are meaningless.

And of course TWR means available power, it does not need to be used and has little to do with fuel consumption.

TWR is putting bigger engines into smaller vehicles.... assuming all the other kit is included then bigger and more powerful engines use more fuel, but increasing fuel to retain range and other features means increasing weight and therefore ruining the TWR improvements of the more powerful engine.

Case in point is the Yak-38 vs the Yak-38M. The latter had a more powerful engine but it was a subsonic fighter, so the extra thrust just meant better acceleration and more weight could be carried.

The extra weight capacity was normally totally cancelled out with the extra fuel it carried so the improved aircraft had better acceleration but only marginally better top speed that remained subsonic but its flight range and endurance were reduced because even with the same fuel efficiency a more powerful engine generates more power with more fuel burned.

On the contrary, very powerful engines accelerate faster the plane and also allow to fly supersonic in military ower, so the use of AB is reduced and fuel consumption improved

Fuel consumption by definition is the amount of thrust generated per the amount of fuel burned per second to generate that thrust... double the power of the engine and double the fuel burn...

That is true, but those planes you mention are all Russian too. So in combat with a Western plane without TVC is indeed an advantage, as it is also for trimming for instance. Nice addition, experience is needed to maybe substitute some control surfaces in future planes with the TVC.

Improved 3D TVC nozzles with widely spaced twin engines is what is generally shown as being the 6th gen fighter with no vertical tail surfaces to reduce RCS and drag.

This idiot would be super happy if Russia did a 5G F-16, best idea they could have. Such a rational, well designed plane is an anomaly for US MIC and it fits Russia much better

The F-16 is not cheap to operate.... it is no MiG-21 nor MiG-23.

Most countries are not going to buy Su-57 but they do need a follower to the MiG-21.

MiG-29M or MiG-35 are affordable to buy and to operate.

The fact that there is already an izd. 30 is I think a serious argument that can settle the discussion, because other reasons are debatable, but that is a hard fact and that is very difficult to trump with softer arguments.

They had a 22 ton thrust R79 derived motor too... guess that means a follow on to the Yak-141 is a slam dunk too?

They need (IMHO) to abandon the school of the MiG-29 for good, it is redundant and creates no synergy whatsoever with the PAK-FA,

There was no commonality between the Su-27 and the MiG-29, just as there was no commonality between the heavy fighter and the heavy interceptor of the Su-27 and MiG-31.

They are different enough to warrant different solutions.

pure wasting of money and effort and making logistics and procurement more complex. It runs also contrary to the consolidation efforts of the Russian aerospace industry and that puts them in a vulnerable position.

That is the same bullshit logic that led the Americans to think first the A-16 modification of the F-16 and then the F-35 could replace the A-10 in the CAS role... in both cases they were miserable failures.

Jack of all trades does not save money when the one type cannot effectively perform all the roles assigned to it.

Thinking one magic plane design can replace everything including drones is proven to fail.

MiG wasted decades trying to scam MoD by peddling repackaged Soviet stuff and will be left in the dirt

MiG offered the best compromise.... MiG-21-98 and MiG-23-98 were both single engined aircraft with reasonable performance and lower operational costs than the MiG-29. The MiG-29SMT reduced operational costs by 40% and added multirole performance as well but the Russian AF was not interested.

You call it a scam, but it was the plan all along... or are you going to accuse Kalashnikov for upgrades to the AK-74 and then the AK-12 which is just a MiG-35 upgrade of a MiG-29 or a T-72 upgrade of an old T-72, or a T-90 upgrade of a T-72...

Upgrade as far as it will go and eliminate all its major and minor problems and in the background work on a from scratch replacement that is just better all round.... and that is what MiG is doing despite few sales to the Russian Air Force... I think they should be getting medals rather than bile on the internet from trolls.

It will look like a single engine jet

The back end of the model wasn't even visible... it is just an assumption that it is a single engined aircraft because of the intake design.

It could be a Typhoon/Ye-8 model for all we know and we have no idea how many engines it has.

UAC already has the monopoly, Russian Military already failed at avoiding it

They have managed to keep the design bureaus intact and working so the competition is all still there.

We already know that the PAK-DA s avionics are based on the su-57s but improved, then the improvement is transferred back to the su-57.

???

Do you mean the PAK DP future long range interceptor?

A lot of the rumours are BS... like the claims of the Backfire replacement from Sukhoi with an enlarged Su-34, and of course single engined Sukhois like the Su-7 have come and gone already...[/quote]

The best way to compare TWR is empty, otherwise planes with big fuel fraction like the Flankers are penalised compared to planes with little internal fuel.

That is not true. Flankers don't fly everywhere all the time with full fuel loads.... the normal operational weight is the best measure for TWR for a fighter aircraft... ie AA missile load and not full fuel tanks is pretty standard for such a measure.

A fully fuelled Flanker cannot pull 9g so the full fuel load is only used when necessary.

so to limit the MTOW of the new fighter to 18 t would be weird. I take it as a reference to the engine thrust as being aligned with the size of the plane for TWR > 1.

Light fighters would never enter combat at MTOW... that would require full fuel tanks and full weapon load which is normally air to ground rather than air to air and therefore would be meaningless to point to the agility and manouver performance of a light fighter.

Do F-16 figures allow for the fact that it will be carrying 7 tons of weapons?

I doubt it... because 7 tons is a theoretical limit rather than a normal weapon payload... in air to air combat the first thing the fighter pilot would do is dump its bombs and external fuel tanks anyway.

No, see above. izd. 30 has the same size as AL-41/31 and F100/F110. It is simply more powerful

Physical size is a factor but I was talking about more powerful. A 12 ton thrust engine burning 2kgs of thrust per ton of fuel in full AB will burn less fuel than an 18 ton thrust engine burning 1.75kgs of fuel per ton of thrust in full AB... 12,000kgs x 2 = 24 tons of fuel per hour in full AB... 18,000kgs x 1.75 = 31.5 tons of fuel per hour in full AB....

Like I said... a more powerful engine burns more fuel... there is no free lunch.

You mention fuel fraction.... well that is the balance... there is a thrust fraction too... it is all part of aircraft design.

No. Fuel consumption depends on the thrust setting, a more powerful engine will need to work less and use proportionally less fuel for the same overall thrust.

Actually the opposite is true... very high thrust settings make the engines less efficient... having to use AB all the time burns a lot of fuel because AB is just throwing fuel into the exhaust.

A single big engine in a plane generates all the aircrafts thrust so it might run at 60% power most of the time... with two engines , each engine can run at rather less than 60% thrust to provide the same level of thrust.

The key is to get twin engines that are very fuel efficient at the thrust setting needed for normal cruise speeds, or to get a single engine with a very fuel efficient fuel burn rate at the thrust setting it will cruise at.

Double engines don't double the fuel consumption because they operate at lower thrust settings when working together.

All fighters strive for TWR and each time more powerful engines, not the other way around...

Well then there are two obvious ways to achieve that.... lighter planes and bigger and more powerful engines... so the obvious question is.... if they want an 18-24 ton light fighter why are they pissing around with an 18 ton thrust engine when clearly they need a 25 ton supersonic bomber engine that they have had in service for some time... except that their might be other factors and considerations involved...

No, you just described specific fuel consumption, and it is very stable among similarly built engines, bigger and smaller. Look up the values, don't be lazy.

That is what I am talking about.... you take the tiny engine out of a Mini and put a V8 in there.... not only will you be sitting in the back seat, but unless you massively increase the size of the fuel tank you are going to be driving from petrol station to petrol station.

That has exactly nothing to do with the light 5G fighter. Nobody is trying it to substitute Su-34, Su-25 etc. Just to offer a cheap, abundant complement to the Su-57 and to merge seamlessly with the unmanned aviation of the future.

Sounds like the S-70.

Pretty safe bet, all possibilities being considered.

So you say.

Intake size gives away the size of the plane and single intake design for two podded engines makes zero sense.

A single intake at the front could split in two to two widely spaced engines... creating an S duct air intake and internal space for an internal weapons bay.

Imagine the intakes of the MiG-35 pushed together to form one intake 1.5 times the width of the current intakes... and the intake nacelles coming together at the nose of the aircraft, with side mounted suction relief doors when needed...

It has nevertheless a ventral intake like it has been said is the case in the Sukhoi model and the glazing looks similar to that in the Su-57.

When it is only a desk model you can use parts from other models to make it cheaper and easier to make.

When your plan keeps failing for 3 decades straight it's a stupid plan

They failed at nothing... the Russian AF was focussed on Su-57 and India was focussed on Rafales... it wouldn't matter what they might have made... there was no chance of any of it getting into service.

When you keep asking for money based on that plan it's officially a scam

You assume they were getting government money, do you have any proof?

And they said that they are making single engine fighter

Single engine fighter which is NOT made by MiG

What matters is number of engines which is officially 1 (one)

No. What matters is what the Russian Air Force says it wants to buy or is buying... and at the moment that is the MiG-35.

Will it have a VTOL version like the F-35B? I think this is also an important optional feature.

Sincerely hope not... if they plan to build CVNs of 70-80 K tons and with catapults then there is no value in making the planes VTOL or VSTOL.

It just makes them more likely to crash and fragile and expensive to buy and operate...

That is not a proper basis for comparison. A F-15 and a Flanker each with 60% internal fuel carry vastly different amounts of fuel.

Why? Does it make the Flanker look heavier and less impressive?

Tough.

Obviously, for the same plane, one engine will accelerate much sooner and accordingly the AB will be engaged less time.

Not obviously at all.

1. Let's say, the more powerful engine remains in AB. With the same fuel consumption of the smaller one (24t fuel/h) it can produce 13.7 t of thrust, while the smaller just produces 12 tf at max.
2. Even worse, the more powerful engine can stay in mil power while the less powerful one needs AB. In the case of izd. 30, mil power of 12 tf is not out of question at all, that means 12 tf x 0.67 = 8 t of fuel where the smaller consumes 24 t

So you are saying they need more powerful engines so they don't use the power as long.... right...

Just for you to know, you are defending exactly my position and contradicting what you said originally

Actually it is amusing because it is defending my original position that two engines give the necessary higher thrust when needed and lower engine cruise settings when not needed... which is why twin engines are a good idea...

I am saying it is good to have a high thrust engine like izd. 30 for better TWR, you were complaining it was wrong because it uses lots of fuel, now you say it is the other way around because high thrust settings waste fuel, which is the type of setting you need more often when the engine is less powerful and my position form the very beginning...

What I am saying is that having two engines makes the higher thrust easier to achieve but in normal flight lower thrust settings for cruise flight will save fuel...

If the izd 30 is an 18 ton thrust engine then the new replacements for the RD-33... perhaps the RD-45 or something could have 12 tons thrust... giving 1:1 TWR at MTOW for a 24 ton MTOW aircraft...

Ok I see, the "twin engine is more powerful" reflex... shouldn't that consume more fuel as per your rationale a couple of paragraphs above?

Not at all, because the fuel burn rate will be similar across the throttle settings but as two engines will be operating at half thrust setting to equal the thrust setting of the bigger single engine it will benefit more from using lower thrust settings on each engine, while also enjoying higher total thrust when needed to be used together at full thrust.

Take the twin engine MiG-35 with RD-33MK vs theoretical single engine fighter with izd. 30, both have 18 tf thrust, but the engines in the first weight 2.3 t while only <1.4 t in the second. TSFC of izd. 30 from what we know is that of the AL-31F with 0.67 (best number we have), RD-33 is 0.75. Frontal section is 2.04 sqm for 2x RD-33 vs 1.28 for AL-31 sized engine like izd. 30.

Let the mental gymnastics begin...

Why use the RD-33MK when there are Soviet copies of Rolls Royce Nene engines you could use to compare to an engine not in service yet?

A single engine fighter with izd. 30 can have a smaller, lighter engine in proportion to the airframe than a F-16, because the engine is much more powerful than the F100/F110 (or AL-31F) having the same size.

Except the Russians seem to prefer more strongly built heavier dry weight aircraft...

Nobody is talking about using impossibly big engines for the sake of thrust, I am saying that the search for more TWR out of the same propulsion footprint is constant. Nobody is placing a NK-32 in a light fighter to start with, aerospace engineers are not retards you know...

You seem to think TWR is everything so starting with a 25 ton thrust engine whose performance could be radically improved.... the NK-32 is an old engine and they are already investing in upgrading its performance... having what could eventually be a 1.5 ton engine that generates 30+ tons of thrust would be an ideal basis for a light fighter... its performance would be astounding...

Complete nonsense, see above.

It is consistent with what you are saying... the biggest possible engine in the smallest lightest possible vehicle... but you ignore what I say about two smaller engines are the best solution to get the most raw power in an aircraft...

That would be atrocious design. If the engines are apart and you join the intakes, you create a lot of extra cross sectional area and you ruin the placement for the weapon bays, because the air ducts cannot be turned and twisted in 90 degree angles but in a smooth way.

Just make them round or oval.

Russian Air Force is bending over backwards to avoid buying MiG-35 and are getting really good at it

More made up shit... the delays in getting the MiG-35s is at MiGs end of getting it right and getting serial production potential organised... it is not like MiG have 20 sitting waiting for the military to come collect them...

It is an apples vs oranges comparison and therefore a shitty metric

Actually perfectly normal... with HATO being the aggressors then a Flanker with lots of fuel is more likely to be engaged by an F-15 over Russian airspace than the other way around...

Apart from the obvious increase in performance, faster acceleration also helps reducing the fuel consumption.

Of course... it is why most modern cars have V8 motors because the extra power means most of the drive they can have their engines turned off using no fuel at all.

For instance, the time you spend going through the transonic region in a dash is relevant for the fuel consumption of a plane, the faster you get past it, the less fuel you waste fighting drag.

So entering a shallow dive to accelerate faster could be a useful tactic too?

You are backtracking and returning to that already debunked myth of yours, yes.

Of course... single engined fighters are super fighters... all new 5th gen fighters are single engined right?

Therefore this was and is a BS discussion as proven to you by examples of single engine aircraft with superior TWR and performance compared to equivalent twin engine planes that you prefer to ignore. I was already tired of explaining the intricacies of this topic months ago.

Of course it is so obvious, and you are tired... yet MiG is looking at twin and single jet designs.

Making Klimov happy to get something worse than izd. 30 in 10-15 years time at an astronomic cost and complicating support and maintenance is not a good enough reason.

Yeah, Klimov should just make helicopter engines and leave the new state of the art stuff to Saturn... maybe they could work on some propeller engines... or maybe investment in rubber band engines might stretch their resources too far... pun intended.

Nice pirouette! Reality is that a single engine plane with the izd. 30 would wipe the floor with the MiG-35 so bad that the comparison is not even funny... >40% less weight, 10% less SFC, > 40% less frontal area for the same thrust is pure overkill. Those numbers represent twice as much as the generational gap between 4.5 and 5.5G, check them against those of AL-41F1S vs izd. 30.

But they don't need to design anything... their single engined trainer aircraft never made it to metal... what makes you think this will?

Unproven claim, unrelated to my point.

The MiG-29 is their light aircraft and it was you whining about it being too heavy.

Twin engine podded design with two separated intakes like MiG-29, Su-27 and Su-57 has straight, efficient air ducts with space in between for the weapons and reasonable drag. Combining the podded design with the single intake has none of the advantages and several additional problems. It is what you would call a shitty design.

Well a single engined design with one intake is not going to have space in between for weapons so it must be a shitty design too right?

Actually it is you who are right, most cars have two engines and that is sooo much better and simpler than having one

The irony is that many new cars have a motor on each wheel and can have more engines too.

If car engines were as expensive as aircraft engines they might have much smaller engines carried in multiples to get the level of power needed for the job.


The BTR-60 was widely criticised in the west for having a complex twin engine design, and it certainly created a lot of problems using two engine to drive around an armoured vehicle, but at the time it made sense... the engine of choice was about a 70HP engine which was simply not powerful enough to move around a 10-12 ton armoured vehicle so instead of spending a lot of money they used two standard truck engines that were widely in service... cheap to maintain and operate too with no problems for spares and support.

Eventually in the BTR-80 they went to a single engine layout which was much better, but there are vehicles that still use two engines, like the DT series of snow tractors with front and rear cabins attached by a hydraulic connection that is being introduced in large numbers in arctic regions because if it falls into water it can self recover back on to floating ice.

There are very few cars with two engines so there must be a very clear reason for that right?

You are claiming single engined fighters are the best... so why do twins dominate?

Of course, in fact this is done quite often. F-35 pilots will have to train that a lot

Actually if the rumours are true and they can only operate their AB for 90 seconds I rather doubt they could achieve supersonic flight at all... except possibly in a steep vertical dive.

I have said hundred times that both approaches have pros and cons and that my opinion is based in the context that VKS already has a heavy twin engined fighter, not on single being per se superior to twin engine. But you wont listen to the complexities of the topic, just keep repeating that two engines = twice the power. It is perplexing.

Yes, we have discussed this a lot and I would say the VKS needs a useful aircraft that can do the job, not some one engine wannabe Gripen half plane that is always inferior to the twin jets it will come up against.

In this context no one actually needs a light plane... what they want is a cheaper aircraft they can buy and use in greater numbers that does not have to have the performance of the larger aircraft they will be operating with.

In that sense you can make a super light single engined fighter like the F-16 which on paper looks great, but in practise was defeated in their own tests in the 1990s against inferior export version MiG-29s, or you can go for a slightly heavier aircraft with two engines and more growth potential that is cheap to operate and use and able to get the job done too.

The Russian military seems to have dumped single engined manned fighters, and they have kept MiG around for some reason... I can't see them wanting Sukhoi to gain any monopoly... any more than anyone else would.

Actually yes. They have a ton of work to do and a lot of engines to take care of both in Russia and abroad. Maybe Saturn should start in the turboshaft business, and ask the government support to compete with Klimov, that would be funny.

Klimov is helping out the Russian military to keep their helicopters flying after getting dropped in it by Motor Sich, why do you think Klimov should suddenly stop working in fighter jet engines and make 4th gen but not develop 5th gen fighter engines?

Is that their reward for working hard to develop new more powerful engines for the entire range of Russian land and sea based helicopters to provide local engines that are actually more powerful than the engines Motor Sich made and stopped providing?

Perhaps Klimov would be much further ahead in making an RD-33 if they weren't directing their resources to fill the gap left by Motor Sich for the engines used by the Mi-8, Mi-17, Mi-14, Mi-24/35, Mi-28, Ka-27, Ka-32, Ka-31, Ka-50, Ka-52... yeah... they have gotten fat and lazy and need to be punished for their waste if time and money... it is clearly Klimov that needs to be punished.

Maybe Saturn should be focussed more on replacing ship propulsion systems instead of trying to poach work from Klimov on light fighters.

That, unlike then, Russia is not in a terminal rot status?

What are you talking about? The Yak-130 is in service... it won that contract.... surely if Sukhoi are the super team they should have won that competition with their hands tied behind their backs... I mean if a single engine design is ideal for a fighter then it should also be ideal for a LIFT.

That military funding =/= zero?

Sukhoi had its own funds from export sales to other countries.

But the need for a light fighter in Russia has been clear for decades and only extraordinary circumstances have prevented its development.

The plans were stated a long time ago... first priority was Su-57 and then the LMFS would start to get funding and support.

Not surprisingly Sukhoi is trying to leverage its experience and skills developed with making the Su-57 to get the LMFS job too, and for the sake of balance and choice I rather suspect that is what will kill their chances of getting the nod in this case.

To think otherwise is like assuming that is standard of Russians to hunt cats in the streets for dinner. The 90's are gone for good, please stop presenting the sad state of things back then as the nature of Russia.

I did no such thing.... if Russia was as it was in the 1990s the MiG-35 would be rather all they needed... there would be no need for anything better in the numbers role for Frontal Aviation.

People actually following real data can see that the MiG-29 has been practically retired from service in the VKS, has just a token presence in the VMF-MA and has not been ordered for quite a long time, while orders of Sukhois keep piling

They will also note orders for the MiG-35 and once they have serial production going more orders will come.

Six orders that are going to go likely to the Swifts is not the most convincing proof that VKS would kill for the MiG-35 either, not for me and not for many people.

The Swifts fly MiGs and the Russian Knights fly Flankers.

The Swifts are getting MiG-35s and the Knights fly Su-35S... coincidence?

Go to the Russian Knights website and look at the link to describe their aircraft...

http://russianknights.ru/en/

You will see along the bottom of the page a link to the page about the aircraft they fly... click on it.

This page comes up:

http://russianknights.ru/en/su-35/

Note it has an error stating this page is not translated to English yet but look at the link text.... Su-35.

It must be a shit plane if they are hiding it in their show units to advertise and represent them internationally... right?

Better to wait and see some real deployment in the VKS before making claims.

The VMF seem happy enough.

Actually Klimov does need to get cracking. Lots of stalled helicopter programs or helicopter programs which use foreign engines. Be it Ansat, Ka-226, Ka-60, Mi-38, etc.
For how long have they been developing the VK-800 engine? They have that and the VK-1600 engine in development.

The top priority was the engine used by the majority of in service Russian helicopters... used by Hips and Hinds and Havocs and Helixs and Hokums...

The VK-2500 was the most important engine and they are making those now.

Can Russia really afford yet another engine program, and a totally separate production line, just so they can have a twin engine light fighter?

The problems they have now mostly revolve around them not making engines in different weights and power ranges... engine programmes can generate money as well as cost money... if Klimov makes replacement engines to power Russian helicopters, those same engines can be sold on the international market to power ex soviet designs for existing and new customers and not only help cut income to Ukraine from Russia, but also from other ex Soviet customers when they buy Russian upgraded engines.

At best you could use this RD-33 successor engine in a Su-25 replacement program but does Klimov have the resources to develop so many engine designs?

Perhaps they could stop making MiG-15 engines and use that production chain instead for the new RD-33 successor...

What sort of future does Klimov have as an engine company if they are not allowed to waste money developing new engine technology?

How long will their current products remain useful if they cannot have the funding to improve and develop or create new engines?

Is it worth it for the state to waste money on developing and manufacturing a whole different engine?

What sort of design limitations is it going to create having only one type of jet engine going forward.

I mean a single 18 ton thrust engine means LIFTS are going to have to gain some weight and get much bigger... a 5 ton jet trainer with an 18 ton thrust jet engine is just silly so lets make it three times bigger and heavier... you could put five cockpits in it and train 4 people at a time...

And of course their new interceptor will probably need three 18 ton thrust engines, which is going to look a bit odd but when the only tool you have is a hammer then you have to treat all problems like they are nails.

I'm not sure a dedicated ground attack aircraft is even needed given that we have drones and glide bombs to be honest.

Yet they spend money on Attack Helicopters and Scout Helicopters.... I am going to guess a dedicated ground attack aircraft is a given... not even counting the Su-34 of course... an Su-25 replacement.

While state is chincy at times, they will earmark money for modernization or opening up more lines if demand is there. VK-2500 was an example of such actions. They are drastically increasing production for a reason.

VK-800 was started and stopped various times. 1600 is rather newish. That is R&D and Russia doesn't rush.

Indeed the VK-2500 aircraft are in service in large numbers.... aircraft that use the VK-800 are not.

Priorities.

This is rather common sense I would assume.

Indeed... Klimov is making money selling RD-93 to China for use on its aircraft exported to third countries...

They build engines to make money... that is their business.

Limiting the Russian military to a few engine types is not a good thing... their new PD series of civilian jet engines are designed to be fully scalable and to use the latest technology so engines in an enormous range of power ratings can be made without having to design them from scratch... this is the ideal situation... not making one engine and forcing all designers to use that engine so they don't have to develop new ones.

Quite right. And on top of that, they sell their fighter engines to a number of foreign countries, and they keep developing them further like with the RD-93MA. So they already have a nice source of revenue, without having to disturb the consolidation efforts of UEC or needing additional money from MoD.

UEC was about consolidating engine companies, not engine types.

You are a special case

I am a special case... but if single engined aircraft are so perfect why do light and medium and even heavy twins even exist?

The F-5 was a light twin that was rather successful. Its replacement with a more powerful single engine was a failure because the new more powerful engine was expensive and no longer cheap and easy to maintain... it broke the whole light cheap simple fighter design concept.

Yeah VKS has kept them in Armenia and the Swifts, they are truly in love with the plane.

They are not interested in MiG-29Ms so they are having to wait for MiG-35s... or are you saying Gorshkov Frigates are a failure too because they have not ordered dozens yet...

They can develop whatever they want, but not expect the UEC and MoD to play along. As said, they have a export market and their revenues if they want to pursue that way. Users of MiGs, JF-17 or even other countries needing a modern alternative to F404 can be interested.

Their core problem is that the primary users of MiG-29s were Warsaw Pact countries that don't need 3,000km range Flanker sized aircraft, but obviously like rats on a sinking ship those customers have all turned tail and are looking at F-16s and even F-35s hahaha...

Hardly MiGs fault or a problem with their product.

Their reward is precisely being handed over all that huge market.

Which takes money and time and resources to service properly, and of course the other problem that a lot of allies and customers are looking to replace their older soviet platforms to prostrate themselves at the feet of the Americans so they don't want or need new engines or they want them for free.

The reason to keep two design schools inside the UAC military is precisely to allow that the best design is always chosen instead of allowing one builder to sell whatever they want without having other options. It is not about making bureaus happy and ensure a 50:50 work share, it is about getting the best HW for the military.

It is about creating choice for the military... sometimes the best aircraft is not chosen for the job. The Ka-50 was picked to replace the Mi-24 hind in Russian Army Aviation service, but it was found that it was not effective at night which was a new requirement. By the time the upgraded Ka-52 was ready the Mi-28N was a lot better and also cheaper, and also rather more mature, so rather than picking one or the other, they selected both and created an attack role for the Mi-28N and NM and the scout recon role for the 52.

Both are getting export contracts and both are potentially useful/capable aircraft.

Yes, these famous orders are the ones we are all waiting for since more than ten years remember? We will see.

Once serial production is going, that is when we will see what future plans for the aircraft the Russian Frontal Aviation forces will have.

From the cold war there were enormous numbers of MiG-15 and MiG-21 and MiG-27 and also Su-7/17/20/22 type aircraft that MiG-35s would be ideal replacements for.

So happy they keep their Su-33 and keep adding modernization plans for them.

I doubt they are worn out, why not keep them. Having a mix of Su-33s for longer range missions and shorter ranged MiG-29KRs for air defence and light strike and also twin seat carrier landing training makes a lot of sense as it eliminates the need for the otherwise useless Su-25s which were totally unarmed and incapable of air to air or air to ground operations.

They should understand that they are the competence center for turboshaft and helicopter engines.

Bullshit. All branches can expand in any direction they please... diversification is a good thing... especially with demands to civilianise their MIC to make it more competitive when weapon sales decline or are unreliable.

They can invest as much as they want in the technologies relevant for those engines and maybe not so much in others, that is all.

Says you. Does that mean Sukhoi is going to stop developing light fighters because their job is heavy fighters and medium and light strike isn't it?

Bullshit, they don't need a super high tech 5G supercruising or VCE for trainers. Trainers don't even use the RD-33, just simple non afterburning turbofans.

The RD-33 wont be around forever and in a few years time with no Russian aircraft using it there would be little reason to keep such an engine in production...

The current trainers don't use AB jet engines because they have two engines... if they only had one engine it would need to be an RD-33 sized engine if it does not have AB because it would need about 5 tons thrust to be of any use in a LIFT.

If you want simple nonAB turbofans then it will need two, but why use two... how expensive and inefficient?

What are you talking about, you are reading direct from UEC that they will use directly the izd. 30 core.

So they have to design another version of this engine.... I thought the concept was using one engine but it is ruined if you need three different versions of it...

Yeah now you mention that, why does not Klimov also start developing PD engines to compete with the "monopoly" of Aviadvigatel, that would make a lot of sense too...

The problem is Saturn trying to set up its own monopoly... Klimov is not at fault here.

A lot of people thought the MiG-29 SMT would sell well but it was a failure in the export market. Given the wide export market the MiG-29 itself had it is kind of pathetic how poorly they did. Most clients looked at the price/performance of both MiG-29 and Su-27 derivatives and there was no contest. Even the Russian Air Force seems to think the same.

The bigger countries wanted better range so the Flanker made more sense, but smaller countries like former WP countries are no longer interested in Russian planes even though some continue to operate them... sanctions prohibit any upgrades.

The experience of the ex German MiGs is instrumental too... they were not interested in upgrading the MiG-29 because that would have made future purchases of very expensive but not more capable Typhoon aircraft up for question so they derated the MiGs engines and withdrew it to use upgraded F-4s so that no one would realise that an upgraded MiG-29 was really all they actually needed all along.

Commonsense has nothing to do with these decisions.

Russia does not have a large enough market for all these competing engine designs. Even if R&D was free each requires a massively expensive production facility and trained staff.

All what engine designs? The new Saturn engine will replace all the previous Al-31 and Al-41 engines in Flanker type aircraft, and a new engine from Klimov will likely replace the RD-33 engines in their MIGs on land and at sea as well as any LMFS that gets airborne.

Even the USA switched to the Super Hornet and cut the F-14 to focus on a single fighter.

The F-14 was originally the fighter with the A-6 intruder being the strike aircraft. The F-18 started as the strike aircraft replacement with eventual hopes it might do both strike and fighter roles... but the F-35 has likely taken the strike roles and the Hornet is now the fighter on US carriers.

On paper the Hornet could have been both, but then on paper the F-35 should have been both.

Ironically also on paper an upgraded F-14 would probably have been much better than either... but when politics comes in to it performance means nothing.

The F-14 never got AMRAAM and had to keep using Sparrow so its performance didn't threaten its replacement with the hornet, and the performance of the F-35 means they needed to keep the Hornets on hand anyway... so terrible failures all round really.

I would think a naval Su-57 together with drones would be enough to cover the Russian Navy's needs.

Having a couple of naval Su-57s would be useful but smaller shorter ranged fighters would be more valuable because you don't want them all flying away and leaving the ships they are supposed to be protecting exposed to surprise enemy attack. Smaller lighter aircraft are also cheaper to buy and to operate and in an air defence role offer more bang for buck.

As an interceptor bigger aircraft have more fuel so can accelerate to higher speed and reach greater distances faster so intercept threats further away which is all good, but most of the time they are more expensive to operate, more marginal to use on a carrier deck and take up more space.

It is an upgrade of the RD-93 engine which currently powers the Pakistani JF-17/Chinese Chengdu FC-1 single engine fighter jets.

Has also been proposed for single engined aircraft like early model Mirage and Cheetah type aircraft.

Earlier reports said the RD-93MA engine will be directly sold to Pakistan. However, sources told defenseworld.net that the engine upgrade work is under contract from a Chinese company for which over 100 such engines is to be manufactured.

So Klimov is licence producing some for a Chinese company...

Linked to the contract with the Indian navy the VMF bought a token force of MiG-29KR and never ordered further units, this is the kind of buy I have always in mind when I think about the MiG-35 and the big Indian tender, which BTW is getting delayed in a way which is compatible with the tests of the MiG-35.

We don't really agree there then... the Russian Navy just tacked on an order for new MiGs because the Indian order already paid to set up production which made them massively cheaper... which is always the core problem for navy jets because unless you are building 20 carriers you never order them in big numbers to reduce costs.

India was ordering planes and the Russian Navy took advantage of the situation and put an order in while the workforce and tooling were still operational saving a lot of money.

The original decision to go with the Su-33 has not been reversed and if it was an order for Su-33s then that is what they would have bought instead.

The reality is that they don't need the multirole performance of the MiGs... they want fighters and interceptors... strike comes from ship and sub launched missiles.

India rejected the MiG-35... they are not going to buy it... which is incredibly ironic considering the claims for its operational costs make it cheap enough to be a light fighter but with a medium fighters performance.... they will probably end up with Hornets, or Falcons.

To be quite honest, if they are already planing seriously to develop the 5G light fighter, buying the MiG-35 in numbers (remember it is not even through with the state tests, years after the Su-57 finished them) does not make much sense.

I would turn that around and say if they have no use for the MiG-35 except a token air display force to fool India into buying it, then why is Russia even spending any money at all on a light 5th gen fighter at all?

The MiG-35 and Su-57 are actually a similar size when you see them together... how much cheaper could a smaller 5th gen fighter possibly be without losing features and capability... why not use drones in the light role?

Going the MiG way would mean buying many MiG-35 now to use them as a development platform for their 5G design, and only be ready in ten years and being left with a fleet of MiG-35 which are already fifteen years late by the time of commissioning.

Frontal aviation don't need or require Flanker sized aircraft... during the cold war it was MiG-21 and MiG-27 as well as Su-7 and Su-17/20/22 that were doing this job, for which an Su-27/30/35/57 are simply overkill.

If there is no role for the MiG-35 then there is no need for the LMFS... just use drones.

Going with Sukhoi would mean the applicable 5G technologies are already developed and the plane will be directly 5.5G or even 6G equivalent from the start, since it should use already the results of the Megapolis project in terms of systems and engines, with known compatibility for more advanced, 6G level modifications like the three streams engine or maybe the biomimetic structure created with additive technologies, plus the already known manned / unmanned approach.

Using Sukhoi means pumping funds and work into a company that should already be busy, and sub contractors that are already working to get more of the same... if they can spare the time.

Using MiG means other companies and subcontractors get work and development and get real experience... it means potential for breakthroughs in other areas and potential new capabilities.

Sukhoi don't need to innovate, they have the Su-57 contract... they could crap out a single engined model overnight, but how many will they want?

The reality is that Sukhoi left MiG in the dust, and starting now with the development of a plane based on the MiG-29 by a company whose latest results are not stellar neither in quality nor in schedule looks definitely not a smart choice.

There is plenty of technology and innovation in the MiG-35... the reason you think they are behind is taht it is a 4th gen fighter... DUH.

Why don't you wait and see what designs they come up with before writing them off.

Yeah see above. After the token buy to soothe the Indians, nothing. You don't develop a plane for 20 odd copies do you?

You don't buy a thousand planes when you can only fit a dozen on your carrier.

The MiG-35 will be carrier capable, so once the MiG-35 is in production for land forces they can order any time and any amount they like.

Wow... not stupid at all... actually quite clever... imagine that...

You are not going to develop a rival for the izd. 30 and its future roadmap with the crumbles from Klimov's budget, that is for sure. Already AL-41F-1S is substantially superior in TWR to the RD-33MK and the gap only gets wider and wider with the F1 and izd. 30. Salut was in a better position to challenge Lyulka-Saturn and they were left behind too. It is always better to concentrate efforts than to disperse them, and UEC is only consequently applying that principle.

You are the one not listening... not bothering to make engines in different engine classes led to them making LIFTS with Ukrainian engines... how cheap was that... did that save them a lot of money and time?

Different teams working on new engines can work on new technology and new choices... working on different engine power classes means a wider range of products can be catered to... they will need a range of engines from tiny missiles to the biggest missiles, tiny drones to the biggest drones, tiny aircraft and helicopters to the biggest of each... making one fifth gen fighter engine just wont cut it.

It also means the aircraft design bureaus wont get a choice in design as to whether they go for a single or a twin... not everything is about the engine... there might be factors that demand a twin engine... hell a VSTOL requirement might mean three engines are needed... how are they going to do that with one engine type?

BS on top of BS. Trainers do not need AB, their engines can be old as you want without a problem, they just need to be dirt cheap and very reliable.

Talking to myself again... you quoted what I said but clearly didn't read it.

I said the current trainer aircraft using single engines would need RD-33 engines because they have 5 ton thrust performance WITHOUT AB.... your response is that trainers don't need AB....

And the cherry of the cake, that single engine would need AB but twin would not.

But why would jet trainers need two engines if single engines are so fucking amazing... the whole reason I brought up the RD-33 is so it could be used as a single engine and would not need AB... but you didn't read what I wrote before, why would I expect you to read this?

Perplexing drivel after all the discussions we had and the amount of evidence you were presented with, this is fixation roughly at Vann's level...

And then the personal insult because you didn't read and obviously don't understand... classy.

Only you don't know anything about the size, demands or characteristics of the complete engine, and therefore amount of engines needed in the PAK-DP.

Course we do... light 5th gen fighter needs high thrust and reduced weight, medium 5th gen fighter is what it is, and interceptor engine needs to operate at some very high speeds that are totally different from the speed ranges the other two aircraft operate at...

Stop inventing sensationalistic narratives, Saturn is not trying anything, it is UEC that establishes the share of work and competences between the companies of the group.

Without consultation?

This is a pitch that you are taking too seriously.

What? Klimov sells the engine to the Chinese for the JF-17, Pakistan wanted apparently the engine better than the WS-13 which the Chinese are quit logically trying to push to sell with their planes. By now Klimov knows a few things more about reliability than the Chinese, but of course that may change as the later gain experience, it is unavoidable. That engine BTW is only valid for the kind of half arsed 6t empty plane like Tejas or JF-17 that has token capabilities for countries wanting to say they have an air force. Modern F-16 are already a big step beyond those.

Yeah, you'd think they would be doing it with fancy super advanced Saturn engines of much higher power.

The engine is intended to be installed as a twin... the idea that it is underpowered for a single engine installation is amusing... how heavy does a light fighter need to be?

It is an export plane are you expecting it to be an F-35 killer in terms of replacing all other light fighters around the world in every air force?

If it is not powerful enough to make a plane better than an F-16 then just do what the Soviets did and use two... but hilarious you criticise them for using one engine in a fighter... obviously idiots... makers and customers... because all customers really just want MiG-21s or F-16s right?

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.