MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

I continue here while the conversation is not moved to the MiG-35 thread...

GarryB wrote:What is not to like... it crams 90% of the performance of an Su-35 into a smaller cheaper lighter aircraft that is cheaper to run...

Technically is perfectly ok, but what I find more attractive of the Russian offer (in fact, without competition) are the political and economical aspects. They know they have big leverage on Russia in terms of weapons sales and that MiG needs the money and backing associated with a big export country for the MiG-35. And they know the Russians have much more margin due to much lower labour costs and value of the ruble. So they can and will squeeze them much more than they can with any other provider, and that alone is enough reason for buying the MiGs.

What are the real options India has?
- China: big no
- US: no, if they want to keep a shred of defence sovereignty. It would be suicidal in these times where US is blatantly rolling over anyone not doing as they please. India already rebuked them for trying to influence them buying S-400. Besides, they will not get F-35 but "F-21" whose only sales argument is that some Indian official or involved local company would make money out of it.
- France: after the Rafale debacle and seeing the little independence it has vs. US it would not be a good idea either.
- Local fighter: they could settle for the Tejas, which is smaller and less capable than what they are looking for or wait another 20 years to develop the right fighter...

The easiest, proven, geopolitically and economically sound way is keep buying Russian planes.

Just because there has been no government funding for light 5th gen fighter bits and pieces they have been busy working on equivalent stuff to fit in to their MiG-35s... Now they are free to start funded work on a new gen fighter they can put it into MiG-35s to test and work out the kinks... and it also means any new stuff the new plane gets can be produced for both types and therefore made in larger numbers which should allow them to reduce the price and get mature components into service on the new plane because they will have already cut their teeth in the 35 in real service.

They are still very, very late. They are showing off their unfinished MiG-35 in airshows while Sukhoi has the Su-57 in serial production, it is almost sad to watch. And they have been ten years talking about the MiG-35 and its AESA radar, it is ridiculous. I assume they will eventually get there and as said I think the MiG-35 can be a perfectly sound and capable medium fighter for many countries, but as of now there is little substance to back their claims.

And they can take that further with the MiG-29M2s being able to test parts too so new engines or new radars that are capable and not that expensive could replace all the MiGs instead of just the high end ones. Improvements in making things or developing things can be used across all the types in service to reduce costs increase commonality and improve performance...

Of course, for instance the UPGs could get upgraded along those lines and that would be 60 modern fighters more for India and with a high degree of commonality with the MiG-35s, if they buy them. I think we even discussed the possibility of them acquiring old MiGs and exchanging them with newer ones for the countries that can pay more, and modernize / sell the old ones at very friendly prices to allied countries in difficult economic situation (Serbia, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, African countries etc)

The easiest, proven, geopolitically and economically sound way is keep buying Russian planes.

Of course but sadly the sensible choice is not always the choice made... they held a competition to find a Medium weight fighter to essentially replace their Mirage 2000s which they wanted to produce locally but France would not allow it and insisted they instead buy the Rafale a medium weight aircraft that is more expensive than their heavy fighter and likely their new heavy stealth fighter.

The competition stipulated the price of 10 billion for 126 fighters... the Rafale won despite the fact that it would cost them about 30 billion dollars for that many aircraft.

At that price the Rafale should never have been allowed to compete as it could never meet the terms of the competition.

It was always going to win and France knew that so they never had to drop their prices.

They are still very, very late. They are showing off their unfinished MiG-35 in airshows while Sukhoi has the Su-57 in serial production, it is almost sad to watch. And they have been ten years talking about the MiG-35 and its AESA radar, it is ridiculous. I assume they will eventually get there and as said I think the MiG-35 can be a perfectly sound and capable medium fighter for many countries, but as of now there is little substance to back their claims.

Imagine... those bastards taking an unfinished fighter plane to airshows and trying to get new customers... the nerve of those bastards... it would be like trying to sell a 120 million dollar fighter that isn't finished either....

What else are the supposed to do.... make a 5th gen fighter without funding against the instructions of the Russian government.... where is that money coming from?

What I think they really should be doing is pushing the MiG-29M2 for its low costs and expandable performance options... some of its newest features are taking a little more time than they thought but there are no 4th gen fighters in Russia flying around with fully functional AESAs making them look slow or backward yet.

I think we even discussed the possibility of them acquiring old MiGs and exchanging them with newer ones for the countries that can pay more, and modernize / sell the old ones at very friendly prices to allied countries in difficult economic situation (Serbia, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, African countries etc)

The best solution for India would be to sell off all old model MiGs back to Russia who could then donate them to Syria and Libya and Egypt perhaps as support for its "help" towards the Libyan people in this difficult time, and for India to set up local production for say 250 MiG-29M2s and a further 50 MiG-35s... they are fully multirole and offer better performance in the air to ground role than Jaguar and MiG-27s, and of course offer better air to air performance than their MiG-21s, so replace all MiG-21s, MiG-27s, and Jaguars and perhaps even a few Mirage 2000s as well with the MiG-35s and then see what France comes up with in terms of prices for new aircraft...

France didn't budge because they knew the Indians wanted the Rafale...

GarryB wrote:It was always going to win and France knew that so they never had to drop their prices.

True, politics often manages to screw even most simple things. In order to maintain some supposed defence "independence" (from Russia, we must understand, even when they have always been a reliable partner), they had no other chance but to buy in France, which is way less reliable and simply ripped them off. The sense of it all? Probably some gentlemen involved in the decision must have pretty expensive assets abroad now...  

Imagine... those bastards taking an unfinished fighter plane to airshows and trying to get new customers... the nerve of those bastards... it would be like trying to sell a 120 million dollar fighter that isn't finished either....      

Haha no, they are not such bastards, but it is rather a sad show. They are MiG, and it should not be allowed to happen that they reach such a low. The bastards are the ones selling 100 F-35 to the Japanese for $23 billion...

What I think they really should be doing is pushing the MiG-29M2 for its low costs and expandable performance options... some of its newest features are taking a little more time than they thought but there are no 4th gen fighters in Russia flying around with fully functional AESAs making them look slow or backward yet.

If you are 10 years away of having a functional AESA, don't tell it is coming, practically ready etc. They have wasted their credibility too... And BTW I don't know why is it so critical to use a Phazotron device instead of a Tikhomirov... is it more important to be loyal to them than to keep MiG alive? Can't they make a deal and use a derivative of the N036 for a period of time, while Phazotron gets their technology into operation?

The best solution for India would be to sell off all old model MiGs back to Russia who could then donate them to Syria and Libya and Egypt perhaps as support for its "help" towards the Libyan people in this difficult time, and for India to set up local production for say 250 MiG-29M2s and a further 50 MiG-35s...

Agree, they would do something like that, if they ever get real abut their needs and possibilities. But it is very possible that they instead keep insisting on stop-gap measures and rushed fighter buys based on short term politics (like recent events at the border with China), instead of long term planning. Produce locally the MiGs with almost total ToT and plan your 5G fighter with support from someone which actually knows and is willing and honest enough to help. It is always sad to see political establishments that apparently cannot come to terms with the realities in which they live. Russia is the best ally they have, one that can actually mediate vs China and that actually has a huge share on their market to defend. They are not going to double cross them just for the fun of it.

If you are 10 years away of having a functional AESA, don't tell it is coming, practically ready etc. They have wasted their credibility too... And BTW I don't know why is it so critical to use a Phazotron device instead of a Tikhomirov... is it more important to be loyal to them than to keep MiG alive? Can't they make a deal and use a derivative of the N036 for a period of time, while Phazotron gets their technology into operation?

But they are clearly not 10 years away, they could have a functional AESA now, but they are likely not selling it.... at enormous cost because it is new, because the existing radar is likely better or almost as good but a fraction of the cost.

Most countries don't want to pay for development... buying something off the shelf is the idea.

I suspect the time it would take to redesign a radar built for a Flanker to fit into a Fulcrum.... for all the plugs to match and the cables to reach, it is just as easy to get from your normal supplier.

MiG is alive and even if no one buys MiG-35s except 150 bought by the Russian government they will be fine... their expertise is more valuable than the worth of their current product.

But it is very possible that they instead keep insisting on stop-gap measures and rushed fighter buys based on short term politics (like recent events at the border with China), instead of long term planning.

There will always be certain influential Indians who thinks French stuff is the best and worth the cost and billions will be wasted chasing that, but when they find they are in a confrontation the emergency buys are not going to France... they are going to Russian weapon and ammo makers...

They can talk about plans and schemes, but I really don't expect them to do something sensible now... new planes cost more than old planes, new technology costs more than old technology.... if you think there is ever going to be such a thing as a cheap to buy and cheap to operate light fighter that can go toe to toe with modern western and Russian medium and heavy fighters and not get slaughtered like drones then that is OK to think that... but honestly the western imperial colonial rape and pillage division is set up to take on and defeat third world countries with cheap light fighters with no independent air defence network to speak of.

Generally, you just find the cellphone number of the top general running their military and then level the cell grid around the tower he next makes a phone call from and the war is half won.

Produce locally the MiGs with almost total ToT and plan your 5G fighter with support from someone which actually knows and is willing and honest enough to help. It is always sad to see political establishments that apparently cannot come to terms with the realities in which they live. Russia is the best ally they have, one that can actually mediate vs China and that actually has a huge share on their market to defend.

The problem is that the75% of Soviet weapons India uses, they use because they are cheap, simple and reliable... the new stuff seems to still be relatively cheap, but does not seem to be cheap enough... you get the feeling they want Russian stuff to remain a fraction of the price of french stuff even when performance is often comparable or even better.

I mean Russia probably could have supplied 200 MiG-29M2s with local production for 10 billion and instead for 8 billion they get 36 Rafales... I wonder how much money they would pay for 8 magic beans....

GarryB wrote:But they are clearly not 10 years away,

Garry, this picture is 13 year old now:



https://defense-update.com/20070302_aesaradar_zhuk_ae.html

They have been selling the dummy for how long? How long do they think they can keep the market interested in some theoretical "new" product that is old before actually existing and they never  release? The same goes for the MiG-35 itself, first presented in 2007 too. I understand the difficult situation they were in the early 2000s, but if your product is already nearing obsolescence from the start, what you need to do is at least get the thing done, cheap and fast, not delaying it further and making further modifications as we saw in last year's MAKS. New colour as if that would make a difference now, small tweaking here and there... I admit I don't understand what is going on.

they could have a functional AESA now, but they are likely not selling it.... at enormous cost because it is new, because the existing radar is likely better or almost as good but a fraction of the cost.

Then what is the point of making such a radar? The have been changing generations (FGA-35, FGA-50), Phazotron regularly writes in the KRET magazine and they explain all the advantages of the design, LTCC technology etc etc... but where is the radar? I think it is a legit question...

Most countries don't want to pay for development... buying something off the shelf is the idea.

I agree, then they have to finish the development and assume the costs of releasing it into market. And if Phazotron uses a different TR module technology than Tikhomirov, then it only gets more expensive...

I suspect the time it would take to redesign a radar built for a Flanker to fit into a Fulcrum.... for all the plugs to match and the cables to reach, it is just as easy to get from your normal supplier.

Well I would risk saying that the biggest difference would be the antenna design, but thanks to modularity inherent to AESA technology that should not be a huge issue. Processing unit should be pretty much the same, power requirements would be lower, as module count... instead of applying what is already available, they seem to go their own way, which is a brave approach, but without the money Sukhoi and Tikhomirov have they are simply too slow.

They can talk about plans and schemes, but I really don't expect them to do something sensible now...

Yeah, not even close. They say now that they don't need Su-57 and will choose the path of independence developing  AMCA on their own... only they don't have the engines so they would get them from UK, but they are already complaining they are not good enough... seriously

The problem is that the75% of Soviet weapons India uses, they use because they are cheap, simple and reliable... the new stuff seems to still be relatively cheap, but does not seem to be cheap enough... you get the feeling they want Russian stuff to remain a fraction of the price of french stuff even when performance is often comparable or even better.

I mean Russia probably could have supplied 200 MiG-29M2s with local production for 10 billion and instead for 8 billion they get 36 Rafales... I wonder how much money they would pay for 8 magic beans....

Does anybody know a worse modern weapons deal than that of Rafale for India?? Token amounts of French weapons at astronomical prices in order to keep the Russian honest... makes you wonder what is the sense of it all, if they save peanuts with the Russians but the French bleed them dry

They have been selling the dummy for how long?

Who is the dummy here.... MiG don't make radars... they work with a company that makes radars and that company is developing AESA radars and probably other more exotic types as well.

Showing something at an airshow and having it enter operational service are two very different things... in 1992 we saw the Mi-28A for the first time in the west in Paris... and by the way in 1986 at Farnborough we saw the first EAP prototypes that eventually became the Typhoon... when did those aircraft enter service...

Are you expecting them to put AESA radars in their fighters no matter what.... their job is to make the best fighter they can make... if the AESA is underpowered and heavy and actually has very similar performance to the radar currently being used that is lighter and 1,000 times cheaper, then only an idiot would demand they put the AESA radar in it.

Egypt wanted AESA radars but they have not got them, which suggests it is not a case of just money and in that case they would be funding development essentially. They are using a working radar till a better one is ready.

How long do they think they can keep the market interested in some theoretical "new" product that is old before actually existing and they never release?

They have spec requirements... if it doesn't meet or exceed those numbers there is no point in putting it in yet... otherwise it just makes the aircraft much more expensive.

The same goes for the MiG-35 itself, first presented in 2007 too. I understand the difficult situation they were in the early 2000s, but if your product is already nearing obsolescence from the start, what you need to do is at least get the thing done, cheap and fast, not delaying it further and making further modifications as we saw in last year's MAKS.

Why are you talking about obsolescence regarding an aircraft you clearly don't know a whole lot about?

Most of the specs and information I have read suggest it is as netcentric as the F-35, and while not as stealthy, it is better in most other regards including speed and range and especially agility... but primarily COST.

When I mention it in regard to the Indian military I keep suggestion production numbers of about 250 for the M2 model and 50 for the 35... you couldn't even consider 10 times lower figures for Rafale or F-35... 25 and 5... and even then local production is not an option anyway...

New colour as if that would make a difference now, small tweaking here and there... I admit I don't understand what is going on.

If you think the delay is getting the colour scheme right... well that explains a lot... the aircraft they were offering as the MiG-35 13 years ago was to Indian MRCA spec... the requirements have likely changed since then otherwise it would be in mass production already... the plane they are building now is probably about as different as an Mi-28A and a Mi-28NM...

Then what is the point of making such a radar? The have been changing generations (FGA-35, FGA-50), Phazotron regularly writes in the KRET magazine and they explain all the advantages of the design, LTCC technology etc etc... but where is the radar? I think it is a legit question...

Lots of improvements in design are made on the factory floor... in other words they only happen once the product is in mass production. New technology, new materials, new methods of fabrication... can all lead to smaller lighter cheaper components that do the job, but this does not happen until the product is in production and the MiG-35 is not in full scale mass production and nor is its AESA radar.

For all we know they might have already decided that a photonic version might take just as long to perfect yet offer orders of magnitude increases in performance for the same sort of money and time.

Very simply look at naval vertical launch missiles... the Soviets were first, but not perfect, there were plenty of issues and problems which they solved at the time with the technology they had available to them at the time... they needed direct access to the missiles... so they couldn't stack them close together, so they created rotary missile handling systems that took enormous space under the deck... ironically they could probably quadruple the number of ready to fire missiles simply by replacing the old systems with a simple array cell system.

I remember the British saying the T-62 is a rubbish tank because its gun is a smoothbore so it will be terribly inaccurate... their new tank will likely use the L55 120mm smoothbore or the new 130mm smoothbore German guns... I guess now smoothbore guns are OK for tanks...

The thing is that over time new ideas can sometimes not be accepted straight away... I don't remember the west talking about how amazing the MiG-31s electronically scanned radar was during its time in service...

I agree, then they have to finish the development and assume the costs of releasing it into market. And if Phazotron uses a different TR module technology than Tikhomirov, then it only gets more expensive...

The core of the issue is production volume, so having unique TR modules would be a bad thing...

Well I would risk saying that the biggest difference would be the antenna design, but thanks to modularity inherent to AESA technology that should not be a huge issue.

I would expect the entire unit would be designed to fit the nose profile of the aircraft... making the radar from the bigger aircraft altogether too big to fit the nose of the smaller plane and therefore need a redesign...

Processing unit should be pretty much the same, power requirements would be lower, as module count... instead of applying what is already available, they seem to go their own way, which is a brave approach, but without the money Sukhoi and Tikhomirov have they are simply too slow.

The thing is that I don't think any other radar making company should be sharing their designs around to make it easier for other companies to make alternative radar sets... even if they don't offer an alternative set in that size...

Yeah, not even close. They say now that they don't need Su-57 and will choose the path of independence developing AMCA on their own... only they don't have the engines so they would get them from UK, but they are already complaining they are not good enough... seriously

Does having a nagging wife make you a better husband... sadly it probably does in the long term... there are probably a lot of men out there who would settle for comfortable enough.... do they know what they are missing... hahaha yeah, they probably do...

Does anybody know a worse modern weapons deal than that of Rafale for India?? Token amounts of French weapons at astronomical prices in order to keep the Russian honest... makes you wonder what is the sense of it all, if they save peanuts with the Russians but the French bleed them dry

Well to begin with, they are a democratically elected government... they are going to find a way to waste money no matter what, but I did find it amusing the amount of bitching about getting an aircraft carrier modified and upgraded and a flight of aircraft to operate from it that was going to be 1.4 billion and turned into 2.4 billion in the end when it was found the engines and pipes needed more work... the complaints and moaning... you would think it was planned... get them to agree and then pretend it needed more work to gouge money out of them.

It would have cost them 4 billion dollars for 18 Rafales.... no carrier... just 18 Rafales... they paid 8.5 billion for 36 Rafales... after running a competition and declaring the Rafale winner for a contract for 126 aircraft for 10 billion... they ended up spending 8.5 billion on 36 planes... no local production...

BTW nice photos Hole... the noticeable features that show these are the new models is the sharp edge of the leading root extensions (LERX)... which creates more energetic vortexes at high angles of attack... the flap on the LERX appears to move the vortex inboard perhaps to align it better with the vertical tail?
The two seat canopy with a full sized radar identifies it as a MiG-29M2/KR/35, and the large area wing flaps previously only used with the naval models for lower landing speeds and better flight control...

MiG got a bad name in the 1990s... as a response or a reaction against the previous administration/politics.... it was the powerful communist fighter maker so in the post cold war period Sukhoi got all the love... which is ironic because MiG worked far harder to make their fighters multirole... but at the time the military didn't need or want the extra cost of multirole... its fall was totally political and not related to the product at hand.

There was a belief that Russia couldn't afford two fighters and therefore the bigger fighter made more sense to keep, but the extra cost didn't really deliver on better performance... if you are a city cab then having a driving range of 10,000km has no value, but being bigger and heavier but carrying a fraction of the fuel it could carry if needed meant it burns more fuel even doing the same thing as a smaller cab... meaning it really isn't the best choice except in places like the Arctic or Far East where airfields are few and far between.

@Garry:

regarding MiG and Phazotron , my opinion is very simple: I understand them having lost out in the 90's not because of their own fault and being in dire need of business, I hope the restructuring of the debt will really help, as I hope it will do for the whole UAC and USC too, there were many companies in the MIC that could not even execute procurement / fulfil state contracts properly because they were permanently strapped for cash. The problem is that they have tried for way too long to sell something they didn't had yet ready and that causes a loss of credibility. Now I just want to see the fighter delivered in numbers to the VKS and then we can discuss about what MiG-35S actually is. There was talk by the MoD about deliveries this year, but as far as I remember they are still busy with state tests. I see the fact that the new 5th gen design has resurfaced as a clear indication that sales prospects for the 29M/K/35 are less than stellar (in numbers and in prices) and they already see the substitution of the MiG-29 as a true necessity, lets see if I am very wrong or not.

regarding MiG and Phazotron , my opinion is very simple: I understand them having lost out in the 90's not because of their own fault and being in dire need of business, I hope the restructuring of the debt will really help, as I hope it will do for the whole UAC and USC too, there were many companies in the MIC that could not even execute procurement / fulfil state contracts properly because they were permanently strapped for cash.

Where are all the western makers of AESA radars exactly... it was well in to the 2000s before western aircraft even got a sniff of AESA radars, and those companies were overfunded US companies that had money and resources thrown at them.

I doubt there is an enormous markup for Russian radars... domestic or export... the fact of the matter is the the key is electronic scanning... which is a huge factor and they had that in the late 1970s...

If the T-90 was American we would be hearing about the enormous value of having a lighter tank offering comparable protection to modern foreign much much heavier and much much more expensive tanks... most of the shit about AESA radar is irrelevant for a lighter fighter that most of the time will operate radar silent guided by its IADS network anyway, but saying a modern medium fighter is obsolescent because it does not have an AESA is silly.

Mainly because really obsolescent stuff can't be fixed just by changing its radar type... a MiG-3 doesn't become a modern fighter plane if you put an AESA radar pod under its fuselage...

The problem is that they have tried for way too long to sell something they didn't had yet ready and that causes a loss of credibility.

You mean like claims for the Rafale and Typhoon that they are semi stealthy? Do either of those aircraft have fully functional AESA radar yet? And I mean in active service...

I see the fact that the new 5th gen design has resurfaced as a clear indication that sales prospects for the 29M/K/35 are less than stellar (in numbers and in prices) and they already see the substitution of the MiG-29 as a true necessity, lets see if I am very wrong or not.

Well I would say the opposite... when the US has to put F-15s back in to production it kinda tells me that no one can afford all stealthy fighter fleets... not even the last super power reknowned for pissing money away like they were printing it... I would think having a cheap mass production MiG-29M2 for a numbers aircraft that is still modern and capable and fully plug and play regarding new air to air and air to ground weapons of all types, plus a more capable but also more expensive MiG-35 as a top line fighter that has 90% the capacity of the Su-35 but cheaper to buy and operate, and a new export model 5th gen light fighter related to the MiGs and likely sharing a lot of the same systems... as they mature they can be transferred to the 35 to boost its performance and compatibility and standardise things without needing to pay top dollar for a bigger heavier aircraft that will cost more doing the same job.

Especially for countries like Egypt who can look at using MiG-35s and new medium 5th gen fighters on aircraft carriers... (proper ones... not converted Mistrals)...

Maybe even a country like Brazil might consider carrier based MiGs.... Imagine how Britain will feel when Argentina expresses some interest....

Even with the shorter ranged R-27R missiles Argentina would have been at a huge advantage against the British Harriers during the Falklands war even with early model MiG-29s... the Harriers were horribly vulnerable to IR missiles of all types... the MiGs could have operated from the islands even after the Vulcan attack...

GarryB wrote:but saying a modern medium fighter is obsolescent because it does not have an AESA is silly.

Don't know if someone has said that, not me at least. In any case, I can understand that some potential buyers don't want to bet now for a fighter they are easily going to operate for the next 25-30 (or more) years if it does not include the radar technology they consider the relevant one at the moment. AESA has some important advantages after all and is obviously the way of the future. For instance it would be not very smart of India to buy 110 planes with radars of unremarkable performance, like current ones on the MiG, which they will need to change in a few years time. Even if you give very good prices, from a commercial point of view it makes MiG's offer weaker.

You mean like claims for the Rafale and Typhoon that they are semi stealthy?  Do either of those aircraft have fully functional AESA radar yet?  And I mean in active service...

They are fielding them. And even best, those planes are operational, are being sold in some numbers and have clear upgrade roadmaps, while the MiG-35 supposedly exists for 13 years now, but is still not operational and is different every time they show it, i.e., looks strongly like a tag with no clear content inside... you know, the banana type of product that ripens by the customer Nobody likes to be that customer, unless they get a very hefty discount.

Well I would say the opposite... when the US has to put F-15s back in to production it kinda tells me that no one can afford all stealthy fighter fleets...

The F-15EX case has a couple of important components, aside from what you say:

- A very urgent case of industrial support for Boeing, which is a strategic national asset and whose future is looking decidedly grim.
- The fact that USAF screwed it big time with their long term force structure planning and in general with the philosophy of their 5th gen.

As I have said before, they placed all their eggs in the 5th gen out of greed before it was the right time, now they have to backtrack. Russia has not done it like that, it has created 4++ gen fighters and used them as a transitional step to the 5th gen, and now have an increasingly modern and perfectly operational fleet of fighters while US invested all their money in supposed superweapons but neglected the backbone of their fleet and the basic warfighting capabilities it has to ensure. Back to Russia, the MiG is a platform designed in the 70's and it is already past due time to design a substitute. The limitations of the airframe are not limited to stealth. They get more difficult to ignore with each passing year and you cannot patch them up to eternity, it is a matter of life.

and a new export model 5th gen light fighter related to the MiGs

I don't know why we are discussing, when you also identify the need of a following model to MiG-29/35. It has always been the same: a new gen is created and it substitutes progressively the existing one. 5th and 4th gen will coexist for a time and then 6th will be created, 4th will be phased out and so on. I don't agree there will exist a 4th gen fleet for as long as a 5th gen does, the Russian way to stealth can be more reasonable and affordable unlike the US one, for instance by using fuselage panels with RAM already included on them, or maybe by doing a cheaper fighter with shaping and basic RAM treatment only, why would it be much more expensive or inconvenient, once manufacturing of big composite fuselage panels or additive manufacturing technologies for complex parts are mastered? The reason for a more rational approach is that they don't need overwhelming superiority to allow for unrestricted aggression. It is the same story as with carriers and all other technologies. If you just try to be able defend yourself, there is normally an easy and economically viable solution for you, if you want to crush others the technological gap necessary and associated costs are going to be absurd.

They are fielding them. And even best, those planes are operational, are being sold in some numbers and have clear upgrade roadmaps, while the MiG-35 supposedly exists for 13 years now, but is still not operational and is different every time they show it, i.e., looks strongly like a tag with no clear content inside... you know, the banana type of product that ripens by the customer Smile Nobody likes to be that customer, unless they get a very hefty discount.

Another problem for the mig35 is that if they sell it, the first customer will have the mig-35A version. It means they will have the very first version that no one tried and debugged before them so the plane may not be as good as advertized with lot of bad surprises. Add to that that mig haven't made a real new fighter since cold war...

Su-30 design is master and they have plenty of version used by ten or so countries which means a strong aircraft with no surprise and you can even directly ask the other export client what they think of it behind the doors. It's a safe buy contrary to the mig-35.

So they can say all they want about it being 1.5 cheaper than su30/35 to operate, it's only words with no real data to back the claims.

Who is the dummy here.... MiG don't make radars... they work with a company that makes radars and that company is developing AESA radars and probably other more exotic types as well.

Sorry, I just reread what I wrote here and would like to apologise to anyone who thought I might have been calling them a dummy... a better term is mockup, which is common throughout a range of industries where real prototypes are very very expensive... you whip up a quick mockup to show them what you could do if they fund it. It gives potential customers an idea of what they could end up with.

Performance and specs are generally estimated... they have to be when something isn't built yet.

Don't know if someone has said that, not me at least. In any case, I can understand that some potential buyers don't want to bet now for a fighter they are easily going to operate for the next 25-30 (or more) years if it does not include the radar technology they consider the relevant one at the moment. AESA has some important advantages after all and is obviously the way of the future. For instance it would be not very smart of India to buy 110 planes with radars of unremarkable performance, like current ones on the MiG, which they will need to change in a few years time. Even if you give very good prices, from a commercial point of view it makes MiG's offer weaker.

I think you are over estimating the difference newer radars will make... do you think that MiG-21 that was shot down would not have been shot down if it had an AESA radar? Do you think the other aircraft in the vicinity would have been more useful and more effective if they had AESA radars.

First gen Russian AESA radars wont be cheap and probably wont have a lot of advantages over existing already used types.... the difference is in the model numbers... the AESAs will be mod.1 while the older sets will be mod.5 or 10 or more.

Over time Russian AESAs will get better and expand performance into new areas older models can't manage and can't be adapted to manage, but right now I rather suspect the Indians didn't want to fund Russia developing new AESA radars... they seem happy to blow lots of cash on French aircraft and systems but when it comes to Russian products they will negotiate till the cows come home for every cent...

The original MiG-29s and Su-27s were slow into service because they were making the airframes and much of the internals fairly rapidly but the new radar and some of the electronics were not so easy to mass produce... I suspect they will likely be having problems now too but the question is is it just AESA they are struggling with, or are they aiming higher... if they wanted a bigger navy they could have produced cold war era ships in enormous numbers, but they seem to have set their goals on multirole ships and fewer but better...

They are fielding them. And even best, those planes are operational, are being sold in some numbers and have clear upgrade roadmaps, while the MiG-35 supposedly exists for 13 years now, but is still not operational and is different every time they show it, i.e., looks strongly like a tag with no clear content inside... you know, the banana type of product that ripens by the customer Smile Nobody likes to be that customer, unless they get a very hefty discount.

Yeah, I think you are being naive.... the MiG-29M first flew in about 1988... do you think internally the MiG-29M2 is anything at all like that aircraft?

Do you think the MiG-35 from 13 years ago is anything like the MiG-35 the Russian Air Force is buying?

The fact that in the background they are developing a 5th gen medium weight fighter suggests they are working on the bleeding edge of Aerospace technology, but you describe them as a banana salesman...

The sales of weapons are more about politics than about the weapons themselves most of the time... the MiG-35 was never going to win the MRCA competition because they had already decided it had to be the Rafale that won to replace their Jaguars and Mirage 2000s.

The fact that the French didn't budge on price suggests they knew that too.

The MRCA was a complete waste of time and money for MiG, but India kept giving mixed signals because despite having no intention of buying a MiG-35 they wanted to give the impression there was a real competition involved in the decision... It was an enormous waste of time and money for MiG.

As I have said before, they placed all their eggs in the 5th gen out of greed before it was the right time, now they have to backtrack. Russia has not done it like that, it has created 4++ gen fighters and used them as a transitional step to the 5th gen, and now have an increasingly modern and perfectly operational fleet of fighters while US invested all their money in supposed superweapons but neglected the backbone of their fleet and the basic warfighting capabilities it has to ensure.

It think it is more fundamental than that... the US went for an all stealth fleet... in their usual clumsy way... just the same as the MLRS was replacing conventional tube artillery and the conventional submarines were being withdrawn and only nuke subs were built for the US Navy, the USAF wanted an all stealthy fighter air fleet and bomber fleet... including replacing the A-10 with the F-35 as well... the only stealthy aircraft they rejected was the Commanche.

In comparison the Russians have never said they wanted the Su-57 and a new lighter stealth fighter to replace all 4th gen fighters... people claim the Su-35 and MiG-35 are stopgaps, but there is no evidence of that... they plan and intend to use stealthy and non stealthy aircraft together because like rocket artillery and tube artillery or conventional and nuke powered subs... they compliment each other... and towed guns and SSKs and MiG-35s and Su-35s are cheaper to buy and to operate than their more expensive equivalent rocket/SSN/stealth fighters.

(Note Rockets are more expensive to feed and use ammo up at a hectic rate, which requires excellent logistics support... but in terms of attacking a target a rocket volley gets more HE on the target area so quickly there is less time to take cover... and for Chem or bio attacks builds up concentrations of agents much faster making them rather more effective...)

Back to Russia, the MiG is a platform designed in the 70's and it is already past due time to design a substitute. The limitations of the airframe are not limited to stealth. They get more difficult to ignore with each passing year and you cannot patch them up to eternity, it is a matter of life.

Again... you look at the plane and you see something from the 1970s... the Soviets could not have built the current MiG-35 even in the 1990s.

And the F-15 is older... but why are you not complaining about the age of the Su-35 and Su-30?

They are essentially the same age as the MiG and still younger than any of the 4th gen US planes in service...

I don't know why we are discussing, when you also identify the need of a following model to MiG-29/35.

The new stealthy MiG is not going to replace the MiG-35... they will be used together... not every job the Russian Air Force needs done requires stealth... and Stealth makes everything more expensive yet only makes it more capable in a few situations...

It has always been the same: a new gen is created and it substitutes progressively the existing one. 5th and 4th gen will coexist for a time and then 6th will be created, 4th will be phased out and so on. I don't agree there will exist a 4th gen fleet for as long as a 5th gen does,

Actually, I think the Russians plan to keep using the 4th and 5th gen together and then the 6th gen will replace the 5th gen and will likely be unmanned and stealthy...

If you just try to be able defend yourself, there is normally an easy and economically viable solution for you, if you want to crush others the technological gap necessary and associated costs are going to be absurd.

A fully loaded and armed Russian CVN is not going to be much more expensive than a fully armed Russian cruiser... the number of missiles the new Russian cruisers will be carrying will be not cheap, but I understand you don't care about the navy and don't think they deserve air support and air cover... they can just hide near Russian ports when things get tough and Russia can do as they are told by the naval powers of the earth like the US and UK and France.... and Japan and China...

I am sure if they are good they might get a cookie.

Another problem for the mig35 is that if they sell it, the first customer will have the mig-35A version. It means they will have the very first version that no one tried and debugged before them so the plane may not be as good as advertized with lot of bad surprises. Add to that that mig haven't made a real new fighter since cold war...

There are quite a few users of the Typhoon and F-35 so those customers must be really very happy with their perfect mature fully debugged fighters... afterall the EU and the US make fighter planes all the time and they know what they are doing compared with the idiots at MiG... I mean obviously the reason the Russia hating eastern europe that changed teams to team USA don't operate MiG-29s is because the F-16 is obviously better... it is newer and by that I mean about 10 years older in terms of design.... except it was the politicians that got rid of those planes... not their military...

Su-30 design is master and they have plenty of version used by ten or so countries which means a strong aircraft with no surprise and you can even directly ask the other export client what they think of it behind the doors. It's a safe buy contrary to the mig-35.

The Su-30 is an Su-27UB from the cold war.

So they can say all they want about it being 1.5 cheaper than su30/35 to operate, it's only words with no real data to back the claims.

Except that the Russian military says the MiG-29SMTs they are operating are cheaper to operate than the Flankers... and physics backs their claims that a smaller lighter aircraft is cheaper to operate and maintain...

The Su-30 is an Su-27UB from the cold war.

They share only the same design. Everything is different. Just like mig29-UB and Mig-35.

Except that the Russian military says the MiG-29SMTs they are operating are cheaper to operate than the Flankers... and physics backs their claims that a smaller lighter aircraft is cheaper to operate and maintain...

It's not a mig-35.

It might be cheaper to operate but if it has lot of defaults it will mostly add cost or stay in hangars. Sukhoi's after sell services are much better than Mig's.

GarryB wrote:Sorry, I just reread what I wrote here and would like to apologise to anyone who thought I might have been calling them a dummy...

Actually it sounded a bit like that to me, yes  

I think you are over estimating the difference newer radars will make... do you think that MiG-21 that was shot down would not have been shot down if it had an AESA radar?  Do you think the other aircraft in the vicinity would have been more useful and more effective if they had AESA radars.

AESA allows many interesting things, probably you know but since you are questioning them (Stealthflanker may correct me if I am wrong)

> Much better reliability
> Better sensitivity since the receiving module is directly coupled to the antenna (I have seen values of ca. 3 dB improvement)
> Fuselage-distributed radar or smart skin as they call it.

In the beginning the power of the T-R modules could not match the power of a PESA, but know it is starting to be the case, and when GaN is deployed the power performance and weight / volume characteristics will improve substantially. Manufacturers and operators better not wait too much to jump into the new technology or they will be left behind.

I suspect they will likely be having problems now too but the question is is it just AESA they are struggling with,

Agree, I don't know. Last year we saw a further airframe modification with changes in aero, cockpit etc. Technically it is ok to keep updating the aircraft, while they don't sell them. The worrying thing is precisely the lack of sales. It seems this year we are finally going to see some VKS units, which is also an anomaly, since VKS does not buy units for state tests... it all looks like yet more industrial support measures for the program. And the airframes George1 posted are also different to the ones shown last year, too... confusing is an understatement to describe the program.

Do you think the MiG-35 from 13 years ago is anything like the MiG-35 the Russian Air Force is buying?

No idea, that is the problem. Was there a real MiG-35 that could be bought and produced back in 2007, when the plane has only recently started the state tests?

The fact that in the background they are developing a 5th gen medium weight fighter suggests they are working on the bleeding edge of Aerospace technology, but you describe them as a banana salesman...

The engineering team can be doing wonders, but the PR strategy sucks big time, and that sadly has the effect of putting a big question mark on the whole program. If you show the plane but don't sell it for 13 years and keep making changes and saying "soon we will have it ready" you are just embarrassing yourself. Sorry, it is how I see it and I have been following the program for some years now.

Check this from MiG's communications responsible, this is the most understandable explanation of what is going on they have managed to give. Consider the timelines involved and how premature it was to talk about this plane with its full features back in 2007, or to offer it to India as a ready to buy product:

https://www.defenceiq.com/air-forces-military-aircraft/articles/what-does-the-mig-35-bring-to-air-combat-interview-with-anastasia-kravchenko

The MRCA was a complete waste of time and money for MiG,

Being in close contact with the customer is hardly ever a loss of time, even if they try to bullshit you. Now MiG is much better prepared to go for the 110 units program they are supposed to open.

It think it is more fundamental than that... the US went for an all stealth fleet...

All planes from now onwards use signature management technologies both in radiofrequency, visible and IR wavelengths, that includes the MiG-35. The problem is to use stealth or any other vaguely technical argument and turn it into a PR tool to make money while neglecting fundamental aspects of the air vehicle, program governance, threat assessment, sustainability etc.

In comparison the Russians have never said they wanted the Su-57

They have clearly said the Su-57 will substitute the Flanker. It will not happen for a long while, since they are still ordering Su-35/30. In say 2040 they may be ordering Su-57 of advanced versions but  probably no more Flankers. You see this because the advanced development for a future features roadmap (state of the art engines, electric actuators, biomimetic structure, rotating 2D nozzles...) goes on now for the Su-57 while the development of the Flanker platform is just sustainment of the fleet and modernization of those variants that have still not reached the Su-35S standard. Again, it is not only about stealth, there are a number of other system and platform issues that are superior in the Su-57 and it does not make sense trying to drag the Flanker also there, because well, you just developed the platform that includes such advances, so why not to use it? Platforms do reach their obsolescence, it is a fact.

people claim the Su-35 and MiG-35 are stopgaps, but there is no evidence of that...

Not necessarily stopgap, because they represent a logical last segment of the useful life of the platform, but they indeed have a role as backup plans and intermediate technology demonstrators for the development of their substitutes. Sukhoi for instance said as much.

Again... you look at the plane and you see something from the 1970s... the Soviets could not have built the current MiG-35 even in the 1990s.

And you talk as if it could be use until the end of time. The retirement is obviously closer for a platform conceived in the 70's than for the one developed almost 40 years later, maybe we can agree on that?

And the F-15 is older... but why are you not complaining about the age of the Su-35 and Su-30?

Su-35 and 30 followed intelligible development programs unlike MiG-35. I don't criticise the aircraft itself, but rather the management of the program and specially its way of going public.

The new stealthy MiG is not going to replace the MiG-35... they will be used together... not every job the Russian Air Force needs done requires stealth... and Stealth makes everything more expensive yet only makes it more capable in a few situations...

In almost all tactical situations, having a low level of signature is going to help. As said, MiG-35 already includes significant RCS reduction measures, which contradicts your point of stealth (maybe you mean VLO?) not being wanted as a general attribute of the fleet. We don't know to what level an eventual 5th gen MiG fighter would take LO/VLO design, they may get crazy about it and make the new plane a boutique product or be more rational and keep it affordable. As of now we can only speculate what price and complexity difference you would have between the MiG-35's existing RCS reduction measures and those on a 5th gen design. To start with, some shaping measures like planform alignment, elimination of corner reflectors and cylindrical sections could bring the first big chunk of RCS reduction with minimal impact on costs.

I understand you don't care about the navy and don't think they deserve air support and air cover... they can just hide near Russian ports when things get tough and Russia can do as they are told by the naval powers of the earth like the US and UK and France.... and Japan and China...

Hahaha, what? Who are you answering to??  

They share only the same design. Everything is different. Just like mig29-UB and Mig-35.

Actually no... both the Su-27UB and Su-30 are two seat Su-27s... both are fully operational aircraft with full spec radars... the only difference with the 27UB is a reduction in fuel and an extra seat and cockpit, while the 30 has improved systems with a better radar and was intended as an airborne AWACS type flying ground controller for the PVO.

The MiG-29UB is a trainer and not a fighter... the first models could only carry short range IR guided missiles because the early model MiG-29s were only compatible with the R-27R and the R-60 and R-73 missiles... it couldn't use R-27T or any of the R-27E model longer ranged missiles.

The UB had an IRST but that is all so later upgrades only added R-27T and R-27ET missiles... but with no radar it was not really much use for anything but training.

In comparison the MiG-35 is a fully capable multirole fighter.

It's not a mig-35.

The MiG-35 is a continuation of the MiG-29SMT upgrades in terms of servicing and self diagnosis equipment.... the original MiG-29 was designed to be able to use without inspection or maintenance for about 500 flight hours... in other words use it in a war without needing to do much to it at all... that made operations in peace time expensive because things got replaced when they didn't need to be... often without inspection.

The improved support programme is also applied to the MiG-35 and 29KR and M2.

It might be cheaper to operate but if it has lot of defaults it will mostly add cost or stay in hangars. Sukhoi's after sell services are much better than Mig's.

MiG has improved dramatically and can offer the level of support Sukhoi offers.

Actually it sounded a bit like that to me, yes

Again Sorry, not what I intended...

> Much better reliability

Have not heard of any complaints about reliability of Russian radars... paying 1,000 times more for a radar antenna to get better reliability... it would be easier to have a few extra older model antennas and look after them properly.

> Better sensitivity since the receiving module is directly coupled to the antenna (I have seen values of ca. 3 dB improvement)

Which is mainly important if the current sets are not good enough... I would expect a mature conventional set would offer good enough performance compared to beta 1 test sample AESA version 0.001.

> Fuselage-distributed radar or smart skin as they call it.

Su-35 Flankers and Su-57 already have that, but from what I have read the Photonic radars actually take it a step further and actually is the aircraft skin with no radar transparent fibreglass radome needed.

In the beginning the power of the T-R modules could not match the power of a PESA, but know it is starting to be the case, and when GaN is deployed the power performance and weight / volume characteristics will improve substantially. Manufacturers and operators better not wait too much to jump into the new technology or they will be left behind.

Yeah, it appears that way from our perspective... but from theirs they might be seeing several bandwagons about to leave the station and jumping on conventional AESA radars means they will be watching the asses of France and the US and other countries ahead of them wearing out the horses trying to catch up, but in a few hours time a new bandwagon leaves that is not horse drawn... it uses a different system that offers much much better performance that will allow them to blow past all the competition... the new bandwagon has wings...

The worrying thing is precisely the lack of sales.

What lack of sales... Egypt and Russia seem to be buying them...

It seems this year we are finally going to see some VKS units, which is also an anomaly, since VKS does not buy units for state tests... it all looks like yet more industrial support measures for the program. And the airframes George1 posted are also different to the ones shown last year, too... confusing is an understatement to describe the program.

What are you complaining about... they must never change the design because the design should be perfect and it will never ever change... come on... how many changes do all aircraft go through during their operational lifetimes, let alone for different versions... why do you think it is a bad thing?

No idea, that is the problem. Was there a real MiG-35 that could be bought and produced back in 2007, when the plane has only recently started the state tests?

If the plane has not changed in 13 years... a paragraph after complaining that the last few built are not identical BTW, then why is it not in mass serial production if it was ready 13 years ago?

13 years ago there was a pitch... to the Indian Air Force but also anyone else interested... it was rejected by an Indian Air Force that never had any interest in it to begin with because they wanted Mirage 2000s... France said... not you silly little Indians we are not selling M2Ks and we wont sell them to you or their production facilities... we want to sell Rafales and that is what you will buy... hopefully to subsidise our own aircraft costs too perhaps.

Now they are aiming the aircraft at the Russian Air Force most likely with a view to use it the same way that Sukhoi used their Su-35 programme to help develop the Su-57... which means the MiG-35 is likely to evolve and develop and end up with mostly 5th gen avionics and weapons too...

The engineering team can be doing wonders, but the PR strategy sucks big time, and that sadly has the effect of putting a big question mark on the whole program.

So they are not great liars... first you complain they are Banana Salesmen and now you complain that they are not Snakeoil Sailsmen...

What PR strategy are you going to suggest... perhaps the F-35 strategy where they just say it has AESA radar already and then deny deny deny, and when it is finally proven to not be an AESA yet just change the requirements and say it was never needed in the first place... at a price of 90 million dollars per aircraft that does not include the engine price!!!

If you show the plane but don't sell it for 13 years and keep making changes and saying "soon we will have it ready" you are just embarrassing yourself.

The plane they showed 13 years ago was a proposal for the Indian competition and being nothing like the current MiG-35 could have been ready and probably in service right now if they had picked it... how many of the 126 Rafales are they currently operating? Where is the hate for France over that? What is their excuse?

Why do their PR people get a free ride?

Sorry, it is how I see it and I have been following the program for some years now.

Following it as part of MiGs engineering team... or just reading the occasional news report just like the rest of us...?

BTW I would add that the last 13 years would include the 2008 war in Georgia and the 2014 escape from Ukraine for the Crimea which each had some fundamental effects on Russian MIC supply chain options and choices... but lets blame MiGs PR department shall we... or is that Putins fault...

or to offer it to India as a ready to buy product

It was as ready to buy as the Gorshkov aircraft carrier or the Su-30M... the Indians have serious demands in terms of their equipment... most of the time offering a final product is a total waste of time because half the guts of any MiG-35 offered will likely get ripped out and replaced with Israeli, French, and Indian equipment just to make the whole process complicated and tedious and difficult.

Being in close contact with the customer is hardly ever a loss of time, even if they try to bullshit you.

There is nothing wrong with communication with a customer, but when your customer is expecting you to show off your product that costs money and when at the end there was never any chance of a sale then that is a total waste of time and money.... neither of which MiG has a lot of.

Now MiG is much better prepared to go for the 110 units program they are supposed to open.

Can they afford to piss away millions to find out? I would say if they don't get a guarantee that they will win I would not even bother...

They can put that energy and money into other things.

All planes from now onwards use signature management technologies both in radiofrequency, visible and IR wavelengths, that includes the MiG-35. The problem is to use stealth or any other vaguely technical argument and turn it into a PR tool to make money while neglecting fundamental aspects of the air vehicle, program governance, threat assessment, sustainability etc.

If that were relevant to what I was saying they would be continuing to make F-16s and F-15s and F-18s... but they are not... their policy was not to have signature management technologies in all planes moving forward, but to have fully from the ground up stealth designs only... which is not the same.

They have clearly said the Su-57 will substitute the Flanker.

Only where stealth is an asset. For most roles the stealth is irrelevant and therefore the Su-35 can probably perform the mission much cheaper and easier.

Platforms do reach their obsolescence, it is a fact.

Of course they do, but there are always things you wont need a light sabre for that a simple knife will do. The An-2 continues to do its job because it is cheap and simple and can get the job done... behind a decent IADS aircraft are not as important as the missiles they carry.... any radar or missiles or engines you can put in an Su-57 you can put in an Su-35 and do the job cheaper...

And you talk as if it could be use until the end of time.

The current MiG-35 uses all new materials and design that externally looks physically like the MiG-29 from some time ago but is actually rather different... I would rate it as better than the F-35 except in terms of stealth which I think is over rated anyway.

The retirement is obviously closer for a platform conceived in the 70's than for the one developed almost 40 years later, maybe we can agree on that?

I honestly think the F-35 will be retired before the MiG-35 and Su-35... because its performance is mediocre... and there seems no obvious way to dramatically improve it.

Su-35 and 30 followed intelligible development programs unlike MiG-35. I don't criticise the aircraft itself, but rather the management of the program and specially its way of going public.

You don't understand its development programmes so it is obsolete? You really are a child of the west... you didn't "sell" it to me properly so I wont even try it...

In almost all tactical situations, having a low level of signature is going to help.

In most tactical situations having two engines allowing for the failure of one or the differential use to perform manouvers no single can match is going to help... the real question is help what? Help make you look cool as you burst into flames because their missiles don't care if you look cool or not and were specifically designed to shoot down aircraft with signature managed airframes...

As said, MiG-35 already includes significant RCS reduction measures, which contradicts your point of stealth (maybe you mean VLO?) not being wanted as a general attribute of the fleet.

The USAF wants stealth, not reduced signature aircraft... otherwise their F-16 and F-15 production plants would never have stopped production.

When I talk about not equipping every soldier with a Ghillie suit I am not suggesting they wear fluro orange reflective vests and carry torches....

We don't know to what level an eventual 5th gen MiG fighter would take LO/VLO design, they may get crazy about it and make the new plane a boutique product or be more rational and keep it affordable.

We know they will likely go for more of the same... a fundamentally stealthy shape with internal and external weapons carriage but optimised for manouver over extreme stealth.

As of now we can only speculate what price and complexity difference you would have between the MiG-35's existing RCS reduction measures and those on a 5th gen design. To start with, some shaping measures like planform alignment, elimination of corner reflectors and cylindrical sections could bring the first big chunk of RCS reduction with minimal impact on costs.

They should be perfectly capable of designing a much more stealthy aircraft when working from scratch... if you could do that to an existing type then everyone would have.

Hahaha, what? Who are you answering to??

Responding to:

If you just try to be able defend yourself, there is normally an easy and economically viable solution for you, if you want to crush others the technological gap necessary and associated costs are going to be absurd.

It seems you can either go for minimal spending and defence posture like a hedgehog, or you can be the US and outspend everyone to build up forces to murder everyone and steal their stuff... you can't for instance do what Russia is doing... having a nuclear defence but also build up a conventional force that could strike back as a deterrence to prevent attacks in the first place... it seems Russia can only be a wet paper bag that would collapse at a touch or a bomb about to kill everyone...

GarryB wrote:Again Sorry, not what I intended...  

No problem!

Have not heard of any complaints about reliability of Russian radars...

It is not a Russian problem, but an intrinsic characteristic of PESA vs AESA. The one has one power transmitter, the other has  TR modules. Russian test pilots have already said that they noticed the increased reliability in N036

Which is mainly important if the current sets are not good enough... I would expect a mature conventional set would offer good enough performance compared to beta 1 test sample AESA version 0.001.

This is one of the key merit figures of the radar, so yes it matters.

Su-35 Flankers and Su-57 already have that, but from what I have read the Photonic radars actually take it a step further and actually is the aircraft skin with no radar transparent fibreglass radome needed.

Russians among every design and engineering schools are maybe the least prone to try running before walking. Tikhomirov and Phazotron are both developing AESA, so the radiophotonics will probably wait a bit.

What lack of sales... Egypt and Russia seem to be buying them...

Egypt bought MiG-29M... but I understand your confusion, not even MiG could say what is the difference  

Now seriously, the MiG-35 appears to be a MiG-29M with new EO suite. That is what I make of the information given. Probably new cockpit now, too, but if a customer wants a M with new cockpit, will they not get it?  

Different radar? Not yet. OVT nozzles? Depends. Other equipment? Depends too.

So they are not great liars... first you complain they are Banana Salesmen and now you complain that they are not Snakeoil Sailsmen...

Why do their PR people get a free ride?

Probably because I don't care what they do  

The current MiG-35 uses all new materials and design that externally looks physically like the MiG-29 from some time ago but is actually rather different...

In what sense it is different? Form what I see it has a reinforced, heavier structure with more hours in it, bigger fuel tanks, no dorsal intakes, two weapon stations more and slightly modified wings / tail. No idea about new materials or technologies. Unrelated to structure, avionics changed too. If you have more info I am all ears or rather eyes. In general it is the update work of the K/M versions by other name and with some tweaks here and there.

I would rate it as better than the F-35 except in terms of stealth which I think is over rated anyway.

Yeah you keep insisting on that but I would recommend you to actually check the data. The "pregnant penguin" is nothing stellar in supersonic flight but there is a lot of other aspects where it is actually better than published data of the K/M/35. And despite the questionable aero and IMHO wrong design philosophy, the system technology used in it is quite serious.

But if you compare the MiG with for instance the Rafale... it does not look very good in almost any aspect. And that is the main issue, as newer platforms have advantages in terms of aero, structure, propulsion and systems integration. It is heavy for the ordnance and fuel capacity, range is acceptable at best, radar performance is poor, EO and EW are a question mark. Its best argument right now is manoeuvrability/TWR (not better than Rafale either I suspect) and price / robustness, but Indians also complained about that and service was not specially strong apparently. That is why I say that it approaches obsolescence.

I honestly think the F-35 will be retired before the MiG-35 and Su-35... because its performance is mediocre... and there seems no obvious way to dramatically improve it.

If there wasn't a three stream adaptive engine + a whole lot of other tech in the pipeline for the F-35 I might agree.

They should be perfectly capable of designing a much more stealthy aircraft when working from scratch... if you could do that to an existing type then everyone would have.

I agree, and that is one of the reasons why it is advisable every few decades to start designing a new platform from zero.

So to finish this: I am not against the MiG ok? It is pretty decent airplane that just needed to be developed when the Su-35S was and not so much later, but life is not always fair. I am just waiting for it to be delivered for once and finish the PR game.

By now we should have:

> #154 shown in 2007
> #741 and 747, 29M used as prototypes of the 35, first flown in 2011
> #702 and 712, 2014 contract, shown in 2017 (official presentation and MAKS)
> #10 and 11, contract 2017, delivered 2019
> #12 and 15, contract 2018, delivered 2020

12 and 15 should in principle go to the Swifts, and then hopefully a contract for combat units. Or maybe not, if India buys before that  

Finally, Mig-35 with r-37M next to it !!!

Can anyone ID the red missiles ? Seems to be kh-35 and kh-38 but I'm not sure.

Isos wrote:Can anyone ID the red missiles ? Seems to be kh-35 and kh-38 but I'm not sure.

I think you are right:



The Kh-35 must have the fins folded in the picture, as it should be for carriage.

This is one of the key merit figures of the radar, so yes it matters.

So you are claiming that all Russian aircraft with non AESA radars are useless and can't do their job?

Russians among every design and engineering schools are maybe the least prone to try running before walking. Tikhomirov and Phazotron are both developing AESA, so the radiophotonics will probably wait a bit.

I would expect a photonic radar to use an AESA type antenna...

Egypt bought MiG-29M... but I understand your confusion, not even MiG could say what is the difference

They are the same airframe.... it does not matter which one they buy... they are three flavours of the same icecream... they just didn't get the one with the chocolate sauce...

It wasn't that long ago you said the MiG-35 is a MiG-29M2 with an AESA radar...

If the AESA radar is not ready for the Russian AF how could it possibly be ready for export?

Now seriously, the MiG-35 appears to be a MiG-29M with new EO suite. That is what I make of the information given. Probably new cockpit now, too, but if a customer wants a M with new cockpit, will they not get it?

The MiG-29M flew in 1988 and is a totally different aircraft to the MiG-29M2 and MiG-29KR and MiG-35.

The difference between the three new aircraft can be changed by buying different avionics packages and radar and pods.

Different radar? Not yet. OVT nozzles? Depends. Other equipment? Depends too.

You can put an AESA radar and TVC engine nozzles on any MiG-29, that wont make them a MiG-35 either.

Probably because I don't care what they do

So you whine because you care... that should be much cuter than it is.

If you have more info I am all ears or rather eyes. In general it is the update work of the K/M versions by other name and with some tweaks here and there.

There were probably four M original models made and likely about a half dozen Ks made... all the rest are old design MiG-29s with the old airframes.

The current MiG-29KRs and prototypes are of the brand new manufacture design, and now some MiG-35s being made... all the rest is old stuff.

Yeah you keep insisting on that but I would recommend you to actually check the data. The "pregnant penguin" is nothing stellar in supersonic flight but there is a lot of other aspects where it is actually better than published data of the K/M/35. And despite the questionable aero and IMHO wrong design philosophy, the system technology used in it is quite serious.

The new MiGs should be able to jam or avoid any missile an F-35 can launch at it and even if the F-35 can do the same the 30mm cannon shells the MiG fires will rip an F-35 a new ahole... even without TVC it is a one sided fight the F-35 can't run away from... with TVC it would be a turkey shoot... much the same as it would be with an Su-35.

But if you compare the MiG with for instance the Rafale... it does not look very good in almost any aspect. And that is the main issue, as newer platforms have advantages in terms of aero, structure, propulsion and systems integration.

Oh please... the MiG-29 has had sensor fusion for 40 years... and what national IADS will the Rafale be integrated into?

What heavy fighter will the Rafale be working with...

It is heavy for the ordnance and fuel capacity,

What is its dry weight?

range is acceptable at best,

It has an inflight refuelling probe if you need more range... in fact it has Su-35s if more range is needed... what has Rafale got?

radar performance is poor,]

What do you even know about its radar performance?

EO and EW are a question mark.

So a claim of obsolescence from ignorance... OK.

but Indians also complained

The Indians complained... they can hardly say the MiG-35 is the best so we are buying Rafales like we planned to all along...

And if MiGs are so shit why are they bothering buying more... surely they should be buying more Rafales because they are so wonderful...

That is why I say that it approaches obsolescence.

Yeah, but a new AESA radar would fix everything... interesting that the low in the Russian high/low fighter range has to beat the best France can make... otherwise it is shit and must be replaced with an F-35 or else... what... the sky will fall?

Just a little sad.

If there wasn't a three stream adaptive engine + a whole lot of other tech in the pipeline for the F-35 I might agree.

No matter what new engine they put in it... no one will be able to afford to fly the damn thing...

The engine is not the problem...

I agree, and that is one of the reasons why it is advisable every few decades to start designing a new platform from zero.

They are doing that... what do you think the new MiG 5th gen project is...    

So to finish this: I am not against the MiG ok? It is pretty decent airplane that just needed to be developed when the Su-35S was and not so much later, but life is not always fair. I am just waiting for it to be delivered for once and finish the PR game.

It is a different plane from a different company.... why would they need them at the same time?

In a home defence role in Russia backed up by the Russian IADS... a Rafale or a Typhoon or a Gripen or an F-35 hasn't got a chance against that obsolescent brand new plane.

Finally, Mig-35 with r-37M next to it !!!

But no AESA so it is rubbish...

Can anyone ID the red missiles ? Seems to be kh-35 and kh-38 but I'm not sure.

Probably though the Kh-35 might be a KAB-250... it should have a bump underneath it for the jet engine, but that may not be present on this mockup...

But no AESA so it is rubbish... Rolling Eyes

Last time they presented it, it was with an AESA. The issue is that they already had the one with 140km range but no one is interested by it. Now they developed the 260km one and they are testing it. But it should be ready very soon.

Probably though the Kh-35 might be a KAB-250... it should have a bump underneath it for the jet engine, but that may not be present on this mockup...

I thought the same. Maybe it is only a mock up for the presentation.

The MiG-35 with a 260km AESA might actually be an enticing proposition for export customers

GarryB wrote:So you are claiming that all Russian aircraft with non AESA radars are useless and can't do their job?

C'mon Garry this is below your standards. It has literally nothing to do with what I said.

I would expect a photonic radar to use an AESA type antenna...

You claim I complain from ignorance but you already know how the ROFAR antennas will be constructed... ahem

they just didn't get the one with the chocolate sauce...

I just go by what MiG say. Wait, do you suggest the MiG-35 naming is just a cheap PR ploy?

The MiG-29M flew in 1988 and is a totally different aircraft to the MiG-29M2 and MiG-29KR and MiG-35.

MiG-29M is the single seat version of the M2...

http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-systems/fighters/mig-29m/

You can put an AESA radar and TVC engine nozzles on any MiG-29, that wont make them a MiG-35 either.

Well, MiG-35 by now has no TVC and no AESA.

What is the difference with MiG-29M? Honest question

So you whine because you care...

Pretty much...

There were probably four M original models made and likely about a half dozen Ks made... all the rest are old design MiG-29s with the old airframes.

The current MiG-29KRs and prototypes are of the brand new manufacture design, and now some MiG-35s being made... all the rest is old stuff.

That has no answer to my question sorry

The new MiGs should be able to jam or avoid any missile an F-35 can launch at it and even if the F-35 can do the same the 30mm cannon shells the MiG fires will rip an F-35 a new ahole... even without TVC it is a one sided fight the F-35 can't run away from... with TVC it would be a turkey shoot... much the same as it would be with an Su-35.

Russian analysis that I have read suggest that would be the case in WVR true. Of course some other technologies like DIRCM have to be considered as well as other kinds of encounter and funtionality, and no I don't agree that MiG-29 or any other fighter can jam enemy AAMs with 100% effectiveness.

Oh please... the MiG-29 has had sensor fusion for 40 years... and what national IADS will the Rafale be integrated into?

Nothing to do with what I say. If you want to go serious about it lets compare the capabilities of the two platforms.

What heavy fighter will the Rafale be working with...

That is hardly a merit of the MiG-29 or even apply for most of the export customers.

What is its dry weight?

Normal take-off weight of the M is 19 tons, remove 5 tons fuel (50% more than old MiG-29) and you have 14 tons empty. We can certainly make no accurate calculations but we can reasonably estimate empty weight of the plane. It seems to be heavy as a F-35 or more and heavier than a F-15C too. Reinforced structure common with the K and extended service life go in that direction too. Service ceiling of 16 km for the 35 instead of 18 km for the older versions are also not giving reason for optimism.

It has an inflight refuelling probe if you need more range... in fact it has Su-35s if more range is needed... what has Rafale got?

That is a really weak excuse isn't it? Rafale can be refuelled too.

What do you even know about its radar performance?

It is the good old Zhuk-M

So a claim of obsolescence from ignorance... OK.

Where is the claim about obsolescence? I just said the performance of the EO suite is unknown.

Yeah, but a new AESA radar would fix everything... interesting that the low in the Russian high/low fighter range has to beat the best France can make... otherwise it is shit and must be replaced with an F-35 or else... what... the sky will fall?

Just a little sad.

What I find sad is that I cannot make a critical analysis of the plane or the program without you taking offence for some reason I don't understand. Rafale and Eurofighter have the same size and therefore are the reference platforms against which the MiG needs to be measured. Also F-18 is a reference too. Unsurprisingly, the platforms developed later have better performance.

Zhuk-M now won't be the "same old" zhuk m of the past. Simply because, like with Bars R, Zaslon AM, etc, they underwent changes with addition of newer subcomponents and updated microprocessor. So their effective performance will be better than previously. As I said, this has been seen with nearly every radar updated since last ten years and in service. But its performance is still limited compared to something that can sustain a large amount of energy like Irbis.