MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

franco wrote:This reporter suggests there are 106 Mig-29's still active in the Russian Air Force;

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DG-eNcdXYAI6J2h.jpg:large

wow, much more than we have been considered. Do we know the site-source of this image?

franco wrote:This reporter suggests there are 106 Mig-29's still active in the Russian Air Force;

pbs.twimg.com/media/DG-eNcdXYAI6J2h.jpg:large

A better estimate that other times and beautiful image, despite is mixing regimental numbers/names and "Airbase" numbers/names

But I find there a few more MiG-29 in service (in the structure and flying) , about 10-15 more

The first , reporter forgot the 195 UAB (former 797 UAP) of Kuschevskaya in Krasnodar Krai
This is part of Krasnodar Flying School together with Armavir, 783 UTsBP ( before 200 UAB and before 713 UAP)
Until 2016 there was a squad of about 6-8 Mig-29UB in each training base , Armavir with blue numbers and Kuschevskaya with red numbers
This team fly for all the south bases (Privolzsky-Astrakhan , Krasnodar, Tikhoresk, Armavir...)
A photo of a part of Krasnodar Flying School Team fliying mixed Armavir and Kuschevskaya planes


However this year the whole team was placed in Kuschevskaya and the blue numbers were painted in red.
At Kuschevskaya there are a complete squadron of MiG-29UB 9-51 (+/-14 planes) also had one Mig-29S ready in this base but not photos flying in 2-3 years
At Armavir then , have only based Yak-130

Here you can find R-92807 Nº18 in feb-2016 changed to Nº18 in feb-2017 >>>   russianplanes.net/regs/RF-92807



In 968 IISAP Lipestk and 237 TsBAP Kubinka there are more UB´s , at least two more each base. I have not evidence if a couple of 9-13 still fly at Lipestk and 929 GLITs Akhtubinsk

About 116 UTsBP Privolzsky-Astrakhan , after receive the Mig-29SMT/UBM , most of the old planes 9-12A and 9-12 were grounded. Most of UB´s continue flying and one more has arrived
In 2017 , there are photos of at least 3x9-12A still flying , 5x9-13 new transferred (Millerovo,Erebuni, ARZ´s) and about 6 UB´s (excludig 6 MiG-29 to be transferred to Serbia), this means about a squadron to complement of SMT´s , expecting new planes, probably MiG-35


The MiG-29 of Erebuni (former 426 SAG) have been changed for other repaired planes , transferred from other places, even one 9-12 from Astrakhan
This planes have been decorated with saints of Russian tradition and similar thigns  >>>   russianplanes.net/search.php?sereq=erebuni
I have no evidence that now have 20 planes, older planes have been sent to repair and/or to other bases as at least ome 9-13 sent to Astrakhan. Teoric number 14+2. or as much 16+2
Anyway this base must be equipped with new aircraft , probably Mig-29SMT from Kursk , that could mean upgrade to regiment



estimated MiG-29´s of " soviet " times : Kubinka 14-16 , Lipestk 6 , Kuschevskaya 14 , Erebuni 16-18 , Privolzsly 14-16 : 65-70 , half of them UB´s (9-51)
As there are no more UBM orders expected, it is likely that most UB´s will remain in service after 2020
If MoD only purchase 24 Mig-35 , the total MiG 29/35 of all types including 29K , should be arround 120-130 when the changes end arround 2020

Unless it turns out to be a complete dog I would expect that a few follow on orders will likely occur over time... the flankers are very capable aircraft but their big size and long range is not always needed, especially in western Russia where there are lots of air fields so the excessive range of the Flanker is not justified.

Hopefully the joint venture over a light 5th gen aircraft might bear fruit to justify a few extra MiG-35s while the light 5th gen design is being fleshed out.

GarryB wrote:Unless it turns out to be a complete dog I would expect that a few follow on orders will likely occur over time... the flankers are very capable aircraft but their big size and long range is not always needed, especially in western Russia where there are lots of air fields so the excessive range of the Flanker is not justified.

Hopefully the joint venture over a light 5th gen aircraft might bear fruit to justify a few extra MiG-35s while the light 5th gen design is being fleshed out.

I think so too. Su-35s are not as fast, agility and maneuver as Mig-35s when doing dogfire that RAF still need to protect home land in the last layout.

kopyo-21 wrote:

GarryB wrote:Unless it turns out to be a complete dog I would expect that a few follow on orders will likely occur over time... the flankers are very capable aircraft but their big size and long range is not always needed, especially in western Russia where there are lots of air fields so the excessive range of the Flanker is not justified.

Hopefully the joint venture over a light 5th gen aircraft might bear fruit to justify a few extra MiG-35s while the light 5th gen design is being fleshed out.

I think so too. Su-35s are not as fast, agility and maneuver as Mig-35s when doing dogfire that RAF still need to protect home land in the last layout.

West Russia is so big as all West Europe (UE ) or even more
The "battle of england" scenary is not posible over the Russia skys
For protect the homeland not only planes, also one thosusend of Su-400/300 launchers are deployed, and of course , Rusia also has the nuclear deterrance
Mig.29/35 only has reason in Caucasus scenary

Su-35 is a superiority fighter, the complement for this role will be SU-57, not Su.30SM ,and in Siberia/Far North , the Mig-31BM
Mig-29 and Mig-35 are multirole, in fact Mig-29 was in the frontal aviation in USSR/Rusia , together Su-24, 25, Mig-27, etc... , while Su-27 was part of PVO forces as Mig-31 , Mig-25 , Mig-23 etc...

the Mig-29 is being replaced for Su-30SM as multirole fighter.Domna, Kursk , Millerovo, and probably some other new base to reach about 140 planes
ALso SU-30SM replaces Su-24 in the Navy, a strike/bomber plane  

VVS DOESN´T WANT AND DOESN´T NEED MIG´s 29/35
Mig-35 CONTRACT IS A POLITICAL PURCHASE , as the 16 SMT´s, for give oxigen to MiG company
If were posible , VVS would sell the 50 Su-29SMT/UBM , even the newest , to any small/middle country and would get more Su-30SM for Yerevan, Astrakhan,training/display units etc... for reach more than 200 SU-30SM

VVS can give thanks to God for the delays of almost a decade with Mig-35 , in other case , now would have Mig-35 at Domna, Millerovo , Kursk , etc...

Even if it is just a political purchase it is a necessary purchase to prevent a monopoly in fighter aircraft.

The main problem is paper warriors and bean counters look at the MiG-29 and the Su-27 and think the Su-27 is superior because both aircraft have similar speed, the Su-27 costs more but has better range and weapon capacity, so you can use one Su-27s to cover the same area as one MiG-29 and the Su-27 is not three times more expensive than the MiG-29.

The problem is that this logic is bloody stupid.

Just because an Su-27 can fly to a radius of 2,000km while a MiG-29 operates to a radius of 1,000km does not mean you can use half as many Su-27s in half the number of air fields to protect the same air space.

The Su-27 is able to fly twice as far on each mission but at the same speeds it cannot actually fly twice as far per mission.

Two MiG-29s however can cover twice the area that one Su-27 can cover per mission because there is two of them.

In the far east where there are fewer airfields located a long way apart then long range aircraft become useful as they fill the gaps between airfields better than shorter ranged aircraft.

In western Russia where there are already plenty of air fields having fewer aircraft just means getting poorer coverage... and is rather stupid.

Brand new modern weapons will be much better performing so having ten missiles under your wings will generally be good enough most of the time.

Operational photos of planes performing real missions show they rarely even have all their weapon pylons fully loaded anyway.

GarryB wrote:Even if it is just a political purchase it is a necessary purchase to prevent a monopoly in fighter aircraft.

The main problem is paper warriors and bean counters look at the MiG-29 and the Su-27 and think the Su-27 is superior because both aircraft have similar speed, the Su-27 costs more but has better range and weapon capacity, so you can use one Su-27s to cover the same area as one MiG-29 and the Su-27 is not three times more expensive than the MiG-29.

The problem is that this logic is bloody stupid.

Just because an Su-27 can fly to a radius of 2,000km while a MiG-29 operates to a radius of 1,000km does not mean you can use half as many Su-27s in half the number of air fields to protect the same air space.

The Su-27 is able to fly twice as far on each mission but at the same speeds it cannot actually fly twice as far per mission.

Two MiG-29s however can cover twice the area that one Su-27 can cover per mission because there is two of them.

In the far east where there are fewer airfields located a long way apart then long range aircraft become useful as they fill the gaps between airfields better than shorter ranged aircraft.

In western Russia where there are already plenty of air fields having fewer aircraft just means getting poorer coverage... and is rather stupid.

Brand new modern weapons will be much better performing so having ten missiles under your wings will generally be good enough most of the time.

Operational photos of planes performing real missions show they rarely even have all their weapon pylons fully loaded anyway.

The idea of covering different roles and needs by different equipment is key. A fine example is the "technical" as discussed on other threads.
Assuming tanks and BMPs can cover all possible uses is plain wrong. Combat in Syria, Africa, and elsewhere under low density infantry
warfare demonstrates the need for technicals which were actually used during the post 1917 civil war in the USSR.

Russia can afford Mig-35s to fill various roles in its forces. One of the biggest threats to Russian security is penny pinching maggots
inside the government and hordes of pundits and media personalities who can always claim the money should be spent on orphans or
some other bleeding heart sh*t. I think Russia should be spending 6% of its GDP on military and not 3% in the near term. Due to re-arming
and dealing with the 1990s collapse, special conditions apply. The number 3% is relevant for the long term, stable regime such as
in the USA or other NATO countries.

Mig should be contracted to develop its own stealth fighter version. Mig should also get money to develop large UAVs. So far
all I am seeing is some sort of trickle down development. This is leaving Russia well behind the curve.

No, Russia shouldn't be spending 6% on military. It had trouble trying to fund everything from the budget with 4%. There are things called social benefits that Russia has to maintain just to keep the country alive. Most of you think Russia is in threat of invasion and that it will happen tomorrow. But none of you can grasp the idea that Russia won't be directly attacked militarily because of the fact that even being able to spend a lot less, they produce a lot more and have enough nukes to blow up this world 3x over. US won't even attack North Korea which doesn't even come close to Russia's military capabilities.

Russia's biggest threat is from the inside, and everyone including the President knows this. hence why they created the National Guard. Hence why they keep taxes low. Hence why they have all these social programs that average Russian takes for granted (Subsidized Education, medicine, etc). That costs a fortune and for Russias overall GDP, is more than what most western nations provide. But at that, it costs so much, a lot of it is dilapidated and needs to be fixed.

You know What Russia's real problem is? Not being able to get rid of corruption. The more they spend, the more that will be lost. So they are going the other route - not spending as much but making every Ruble count. Hence why they have these new programs out to monitor flow of money within the country.

They can militarily prepare themselves by upgrading existing jets to newest capabilities and build newer jets in reasonable numbers. That is EXACTLY what they are doing now. Once the current orders are completed, then they will order more. That is how it has always been and always will be. Yes, I would like to see 500 Su-57's and such. But let us be real here. Since Russia isn't in a shooting war, it has to still play by the economics game.

miketheterrible wrote:No, Russia shouldn't be spending 6% on military.  It had trouble trying to fund everything from the budget with 4%.  There are things called social benefits that Russia has to maintain just to keep the country alive.  Most of you think Russia is in threat of invasion and that it will happen tomorrow.  But none of you can grasp the idea that Russia won't be directly attacked militarily because of the fact that even being able to spend a lot less, they produce a lot more and have enough nukes to blow up this world 3x over.  US won't even attack North Korea which doesn't even come close to Russia's military capabilities.

Russia's biggest threat is from the inside, and everyone including the President knows this.  hence why they created the National Guard.  Hence why they keep taxes low.  Hence why they have all these social programs that average Russian takes for granted (Subsidized Education, medicine, etc).  That costs a fortune and for Russias overall GDP, is more than what most western nations provide.  But at that, it costs so much, a lot of it is dilapidated and needs to be fixed.

You know What Russia's real problem is? Not being able to get rid of corruption.  The more they spend, the more that will be lost.  So they are going the other route - not spending as much but making every Ruble count.  Hence why they have these new programs out to monitor flow of money within the country.

They can militarily prepare themselves by upgrading existing jets to newest capabilities and build newer jets in reasonable numbers.  That is EXACTLY what they are doing now.  Once the current orders are completed, then they will order more.  That is how it has always been and always will be.  Yes, I would like to see 500 Su-57's and such.  But let us be real here.  Since Russia isn't in a shooting war, it has to still play by the economics game.

Corruption is a vapid term that means whatever the spin being applied to it. Russia does not have Ukraine's rot level problem and NATO is
full of corruption even though it pretends to be squeaky clean. I did not say to spend 6% indefinitely. And your claim that Russia's threats
are only internal is based on what? Russia should spend all that it needs to spend for 10 years to overcome the 1990s collapse and Soviet
deficiencies and if it has to run up a debt to do this, then it is worth it. A side effect of the 6% will be serious GDP stimulus (the USA rides
this rather well) that will translate into more money for all the social programs you talk about. Social spending in Russia does not have to be
a zero sum game. It is monetarist parasite at the CBR and the Ministry of Finance that impose this religion on the country. While the west
takes the most pragmatic approach, Russia is saddled with false dogma. If you want Russians to have better social services, then the CBR
needs to be purged completely and the current near 10% interest rate reduced to 2%. In addition, Russians should learn that paying a 13%
flat income tax is not sufficient for western style social services. If they want the goodies, then they should pay a progressive income tax
like western citizens.

Yeah, they tried your suggestion during the 80's and it didn't work. It isn't working for the US either. Definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Funny thing too, is that Russia's export of food exceeds its military sales now, even though its food production is rather new compared to its military. So low and behold, its military production isn't actually fetching Russia a whole lot compared to its input. In reality,they need to spend what they need, not what we want, and they are already doing that. Building up debt to build more weapons for themselves isn't going to solve any issue. It will create more issues. Instead, they are doing it smart - living within their means and developing what they need. They aren't going to stop procurement or anything.
Tell me, do you really believe Russia has more direct military threats than it does with 5th column activity? If you think so, then you are delusional. If you think NATO will strike now or even 10 years from now, you are only fooling yourself.  They would strike if Russia put $0 to their military, but they aren't. Instead, dissent is being fermented from outside to create issue inside Russia. Navalny is an example of that. He is a bigger threat than NATO for Russia.

Spending 6% even short term is stupid. Not even China does that and they are all about overly inflated numbering schemes like the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Notable_hyperinflationary_episodes

Since Russian Ruble isn't a reserve currency, and since it really isn't the center of trading, it will not be able to pull the same scheme as US does. China does it through infrastructure schemes. Russia doesn't do that and rightly so.

What will help, is when Russia's economy advances even more after they move some investments from the military to civillian and more businesses spring up and development, means more money in the economy and thus more spending later on even if it is still only 3%. That is what they are going to do and trying. Building more weapons isn't going to make them even safer. In the end, they can produce significant amount of weapons if the threat becomes too obvious and the US/NATO openly "prepares". Till then, all it will do is create an arms race Russia cannot afford. So doing it the "slow and steady wins the race" concept is the correct method. Anyway, they seem to be able to procure more in this method than other methods.

And yes, corruption in Russia does exist. A lot of money from the defense budget has been stolen since SAP2020 program and thus that is why they introduced new methods of monitoring the money flow. See Vostochny as an example.

miketheterrible wrote:Yeah, they tried your suggestion during the 80's and it didn't work. It isn't working for the US either. Definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Funny thing too, is that Russia's export of food exceeds its military sales now, even though its food production is rather new compared to its military. So low and behold, its military production isn't actually fetching Russia a whole lot compared to its input. In reality,they need to spend what they need, not what we want, and they are already doing that. Building up debt to build more weapons for themselves isn't going to solve any issue. It will create more issues. Instead, they are doing it smart - living within their means and developing what they need. They aren't going to stop procurement or anything.
Tell me, do you really believe Russia has more direct military threats than it does with 5th column activity? If you think so, then you are delusional. If you think NATO will strike now or even 10 years from now, you are only fooling yourself.  They would strike if Russia put $0 to their military, but they aren't. Instead, dissent is being fermented from outside to create issue inside Russia. Navalny is an example of that. He is a bigger threat than NATO for Russia.

Spending 6% even short term is stupid. Not even China does that and they are all about overly inflated numbering schemes like the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Notable_hyperinflationary_episodes

Since Russian Ruble isn't a reserve currency, and since it really isn't the center of trading, it will not be able to pull the same scheme as US does.  China does it through infrastructure schemes.  Russia doesn't do that and rightly so.

What will help, is when Russia's economy advances even more after they move some investments from the military to civillian and more businesses spring up and development, means more money in the economy and thus more spending later on even if it is still only 3%.  That is what they are going to do and trying.  Building more weapons isn't going to make them even safer.  In the end, they can produce significant amount of weapons if the threat becomes too obvious and the US/NATO openly "prepares".  Till then, all it will do is create an arms race Russia cannot afford.  So doing it the "slow and steady wins the race" concept is the correct method.  Anyway, they seem to be able to procure more in this method than other methods.

And yes, corruption in Russia does exist.  A lot of money from the defense budget has been stolen since SAP2020 program and thus that is why they introduced new methods of monitoring the money flow.  See Vostochny as an example.

I agree with mike here. Corruption needs to be tackled and the economy diversified from oil and gas and as for threats we only have to look at the west's current approach civil unrest and civil war then arm locals to do the dirty work and possible cyber attacks NATO won't attack Russia solely because of nukes. As for military Russia is doing the right thing a mix of upgrades and new purchases making it a capable force and still a threat without going into crazy spending mode. The efficiency of the Russian Armed Forces in Syria has worried the west the image of a run down post soviet collapse army has gone and even average numb minded bias media reading population has started to realise this. Even North Korea won't be attacked anytime soon the west could have easily destroyed nuclear facilities in the country but haven't because of the aftermath, South Korea would face a certain attack. When I visited DPRK I looked at many things and even the guides pointed out some military points the country would be a military nightmare I have also visited the chu chi min tunnels in Vietnam used by vietcong also hideous but north Korea would be 100 times worse they have huge concrete pillars on main roads which are designed to be blown to block the roads. Great little ideas like this are all over the country

Russia's economy is diversified, the issue is that the country lacks the drive by locals to really do their own business and to push for their own developments. The government has done it for them for so long, they don't know how I suppose. What the main goal is, is to fix the foundation that was left behind for them by Soviet Union - fix the infrastructure and build new ones, fix the healthcare system, fix the education system. One big bite at Russia for years was monograds which were more or less a 1 industry horse town that survived entirely on that 1 industry. They are fixing this. Togliatti now produces much more than just cars - agriculture goods, pharmaceuticals, and others. But western Russia, while rich, eastern and central Russia is not. So the concentration is getting those regions up to par with western Russia, which in turn should create stability throughout the nation. That stability brings more people, more business, more investments. All in all, Russia is in the right direction, but they aren't there yet.

Russia still imports petrol, food, equipment, electronics, etc. They need to reduce greatly to almost 0 the import of petrol and food. Equipment and electronics can still be imported as they are not strategic overall (since strategic ones are starting to be made in house). Biggest move is to get the MiC's out of relying on government orders, and into civilian products. This does a couple of things 1) makes income more steady for the industries, meaning more money incoming means more money for potential R&D and further investments and ultimately more tax money and (2) creates products that people need and able to do that all in house.

Investing in MiG-35's isn't a bad idea as it keeps the business alive and same with R&D and people working. But they cannot just survive off of this. Mikoyan has a name to it. They can produce civilian goods like models, parts for any other equipment, utensils, etc. They used to do this during the 90's to stay alive and it worked. They can do it now to diversify their development.

But we have digressed from topic at hand.

My opinion is that the MiG-29's still have somewhat of a market but most nations are looking for something real cheap and capable. If I am doing my math right, MiG-35's cost nearly as much, or more, than Su-35S while not being in the same league in terms of performance. This is an issue. Same with the fact that 2 engines means more maintenance and costs while it is a light fighter, a single engine could do wonders. A single jet engine aircraft is in the interest in many nations, and I think Russia could produce one that would be more geared towards export and maybe used in their smaller bases abroad or maybe at home like Kaliningrad and Crimea.

GarryB wrote:Even if it is just a political purchase it is a necessary purchase to prevent a monopoly in fighter aircraft.

The main problem is paper warriors and bean counters look at the MiG-29 and the Su-27 and think the Su-27 is superior because both aircraft have similar speed, the Su-27 costs more but has better range and weapon capacity, so you can use one Su-27s to cover the same area as one MiG-29 and the Su-27 is not three times more expensive than the MiG-29.

The problem is that this logic is bloody stupid.

Just because an Su-27 can fly to a radius of 2,000km while a MiG-29 operates to a radius of 1,000km does not mean you can use half as many Su-27s in half the number of air fields to protect the same air space.

The Su-27 is able to fly twice as far on each mission but at the same speeds it cannot actually fly twice as far per mission.

Two MiG-29s however can cover twice the area that one Su-27 can cover per mission because there is two of them.

In the far east where there are fewer airfields located a long way apart then long range aircraft become useful as they fill the gaps between airfields better than shorter ranged aircraft.

In western Russia where there are already plenty of air fields having fewer aircraft just means getting poorer coverage... and is rather stupid.

Brand new modern weapons will be much better performing so having ten missiles under your wings will generally be good enough most of the time.

Operational photos of planes performing real missions show they rarely even have all their weapon pylons fully loaded anyway.

Sorry but you are mistaken again

You are comparing Mig-29 with SU-27 , that was designed in late 70´s for a diferent type of scenario and diferent roles than nowadays are needed
Please review soviet order of battle
Mig-29 and Su-27 worked mostly in diferent branches, Mig-29 mainly in frontal aviation with planes like Su-24
Su-27 mainly in PVO divisions with Mig-31 and anti aircraft missile regiments

The question isn´t between  Mig-29/35 and Su-27/35 , is between Mig-35 and Su-30SM ( "MK5" , a two seater multirole aircraft)
I just remarked the facts , the generals of VKS have choosen SU-30SM , and as I am not VKS general , I can only verify the reality

All these supposed characteristics and qualities of airplanes, which are reserved matter, are only conjectures or things read in one of those magazines of aviation
VKS has 35 years of experience with these aircraft and unless here is a pilot of the VKS I do not think there is anyone here with capacity to question the experts and generals of VKS
Also , seem to forget that planes are shot down by missiles many miles away , Top Gun is an mid-80's movie
 

I cannot understand why people in this fórum are surprised for the change in Kursk of Mig-29SMT for Su-30SM , after Millerovo and Domna did the same change of Mig-29 for SU-30SM
In fact Mig-29SMT are in the RuAF only because Algeria rejected them , in other case at Kursk today would still have the planes that are now parked in Kuschevskaya or Astrakhan
Also cannot understand that others want "more Su-35 instead the SU-30SM" , when are replacing diferent planes for different roles
Nobody really understood what the VKS generals are doing????
As you see in Syria was destined a brigade with Su-25 , SU-24  , SU-34 and Su-30SM. Later , when Turkey shooted down a SU-24 Putin sent a Su-35 unit and S-400 unit


ABout the Mig-35 , seems naturally that military complex need that VKS purchases some and test them on their units before to export
The matter is VKS already have 50 Mig-29SMT/UBM , that should not have , especially the last 16

Now, the question is , where the Mig-29SMT of Kursk will be based ? , thinking VKS must buy other 24 Mig-35

The only Mig-29 unit remaining , is the outstanding unit of Yerevan , but it is a squadron , not a regiment
In case to upgrade of Yerevan to regiment with the Mig-29SMT , Mig-35 will go to complete a second squadron in Astrakhan , together the new Mig-29SMT , and the other 6-8 planes to Kubinka

However , It is not logical for pilots to train in Astrakan unit with Mig-29/35 when most combat units have Su-30SM
Other posibility is open a new regiment, in a newly rebuilt base in the Caucasus área for send the Mig-29SMT there: Mozdok
In that case the Mig-35 would go to Yerevan squadron and Kubinka , and the other Astrakhan squadron would be completed with SU-30SM for training at Ashuluk Range


Please, the military bugdet and political situation of Russia is not of this topic

GarryB wrote:
Competition is good because it drives everyone to be better, but it is horrendously wasteful when you end up basically spending to develop two separate products for every role where one wins all and the other is forced to find foreign financial backers.

I must say isolation for western products seems to be best for Russia internally, so a drive to commercialise technologies in Russia and to find uses for the new technologies developed should be a focus..

Competition is only a neoliberal fiction
In USSR of course there was not competition and had a lot of Aeronautical Design Bureaus with very good results in some fields

But in USA either, the contracts are rigged and the price only rises and rises with a lot of corruption in the military complex and Washihgton lobbies
Of all the aeronautical companies that had been in WW2 they have been merging and creating 2 large corporations or sometimes  "joint ventures" with contracts insured for being a duopoly

MiG has been left behind, when in the USSR it was the main bureau of design in warplanes
Sukhoi is likely to absorb MiG, to manage its factories, and MiG will remain only as a design office, sub-section to Sukhoi
We must wait for the Mig-41 product to replace the Mig-31, perhaps MiG resurges again

miketheterrible wrote:

My opinion is that the MiG-29's still have somewhat of a market but most nations are looking for something real cheap and capable.  If I am doing my math right, MiG-35's cost nearly as much, or more, than Su-35S while not being in the same league in terms of performance.  This is an issue.  Same with the fact that 2 engines means more maintenance and costs while it is a light fighter, a single engine could do wonders.  A single jet engine aircraft is in the interest in many nations, and I think Russia could produce one that would be more geared towards export and maybe used in their smaller bases abroad or maybe at home like Kaliningrad and Crimea.

I think the costs in developing a single engined aircraft out weights potential costs in maintaining a twin engined Mig-29SMT unless you were of course going to develop something new and much better than it. But countries looking for a cheap aircraft I think they would struggle to find cheaper and better than Mig-29SMT of course another cheap option although not better but still good would be a combat version of Yak-130. Also if you look at some single engined aircraft currently on the market and price tag and maintenance like F-16 and Gripen they are still very pricey in both areas. But maybe in the future Mig might produce a single engine but I still think it unlikely

Mig-35 with new targeting pod and R-73/74 missiles.

Image taken from

https://www.facebook.com/MikoyanGurevichFulcrum/

Isos wrote:Mig-35 with new targeting pod and R-73/74 missiles.

Great...thanks for posting

Some information on Mig-35 AESA and R-77M from Swifts of Nile in AFM Oct issue

Weapons and systems

In terms of combat capability, the EAF MiG-29M/M2s have a major point of difference with the ‘ultimate’ MiG-35. The Egyptian jets lack the Zhuk-AE active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar,
after its manufacturer, Phazotron-NIIR, delayed the launch of quantity production.

The Zhuk-AE is an X-band radar that can track up to 30 targets and attack the six highest-priority targets simultaneously.

Early versions of the radar were installed and tested on the first MiG-35 prototypes but their demonstrated 87-99-mile (140-160km) target detection range did not meet the needs of the Russian defence ministry. Phazotron-NIIR is currently working on a more powerful variant using a greater number of transmit/receive modules to provide a maximum detection range of 155-174 miles (250-280km).

When Egypt ordered its new MiGs, the Zhuk-AE was still under development. Furthermore, the AESA-equipped R-77M air-to-air missile (AAM) with a range of 121 miles (195km) was also unavailable.

The MiG-29M/M2s ordered by Egypt were therefore to be provided with less advanced avionics and weapon systems and the alternative Zhuk-MF radar. This is based on the Zhuk-ME as installed
on advanced Russian Aerospace Forces and Russian Navy MiG-29s and proven in combat during the Russian military intervention in Syria. The Zhuk-ME has a maximum detection range of 68-75 miles
(110-120km) against an airborne target with a radar cross-section of 54sq ft (5m2). As installed in the MiG-29M/M2, the radar provides a genuine beyond-visual-range (BVR) engagement capability using R-77-1 active-radar-homing (AA-12 Adder) AAMs.

120 km against a 5 square meter target is pathetic. They really should have develop the AE faster and gave it to egyptian mig.

195 km for new r 77 is just perfect. Hope we will see them in the near future and test them in Syria.

The MiG will be an interceptor/fighter so being able to track targets at 120km with radar is perfectly adequate.

If operating with ground radar or airborne radar then ti will operate with its own radar off.

I am sure if Egypt want AESA radar and are prepared to pay for it they will get it.

GarryB wrote:The MiG will be an interceptor/fighter so being able to track targets at 120km with radar is perfectly adequate.

If operating with ground radar or airborne radar then ti will operate with its own radar off.

I am sure if Egypt want AESA radar and are prepared to pay for it they will get it.

In russian army they are used as interceptors. In egyptian or in smaller countries it needs to be multirole. Egypt doesn't have money, Saoudis are paying for their stuff I think.

Isos wrote:

In russian army they are used as interceptors. In egyptian or in smaller countries it needs to be multirole. Egypt doesn't have money, Saoudis are paying for their stuff I think.

in current state of Russo-Saudi relations is is even more likely Egypt financing though

The cold war is over... Russia wants good relations with all countries of the world but they are not a charity.

If Egypt pays for MiG-29s with 120km range radars then that is what they will get.

if they want better then they will have to pay more.

Who else will sell them such things and then not demand control of them?

Even if the US sold them F-35s they would not actually belong to Egypt... ask me about our Skyhawks, or Venezuela about their F-16s...

GarryB wrote:The cold war is over... Russia wants good relations with all countries of the world but they are not a charity.

If Egypt pays for MiG-29s with 120km range radars then that is what they will get.

if they want better then they will have to pay more.

Who else will sell them such things and then not demand control of them?

Even if the US sold them F-35s they would not actually belong to Egypt... ask me about our Skyhawks, or Venezuela about their F-16s...

Of course money is always a big part of the equation.

Do you know if Venezuela allowed RuAF to look at their F-16 when Hugo Chavez was the president ?? He was so close to Putin and so against US.

New picture of Eyptian Mig-29/35. We can the glass has a yellow coulor like F-22. Probably new materials for stealth.