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??
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...