Rafale was amazing. Much better than any Mig-29S, Mirage 2000, f16, f15 or su27.
It has a perfect mix of manoeuvrability, low observability, multi role capabilities and sensors.
So never had any problems.... fully functional from the first day of service... no problems at all...
Well I am impressed.... and a little suspicious.
Usually when something sounds so good it isn't.
It was never designed to be a light cheap fighter but a multirole fighter that would replace 7 jets in french airforce and they knew very well such airplane would be more expensive than the older ones.
Ahh, so wait a minute... you are comparing the Rafale with the MiG-35 when clearly you should be comparing it with the Su-57 which is Russias more expensive plane...
The rest of your answers are totally biased. US buy again f-15 but what you forget to say is that they have more than a hundred of f22 and already few hundreds of f35.
But if there is no future for 4th gen fighters and they are all obsolete then why does the US waste time making F-15s that will be at a huge disadvantage against Chinese and European and even Turkish 5th gen fighters.... it is like putting Mustangs back in to production isn't it?
Then you say mig-29M is very good but also mig29SMT which is an upgrade to M level sucks against Turkish f-16 and US f-15 in Syria (and bring yak 130 from nowhere to "prove" your comments).
If they were up against ISIS's air force then the MiG-29SMT would be better value for money and capable enough to get the job done.
The MiG-29SMT is not a bad plane by any measure but against US F-22s and Israeli F-35s, and Turkish F-16s and potentially French Rafales from carriers... they have a better plane in the form of the Su-35.
Awesome opportunity to test those wing mounted L band AESAs against western stealth planes... if only they would come out to play...
You say Su-30 is made to act as an awacs (which was never said by the airforce or sukhoi) for smaller fighters which will come in more numbers and then say "why should they buy 2 migs for 1 su35.
The Su-30 was a PVO project and was intended as an AWACS role... but they kept it cheap.... they never spent the money on the Russian planes to fit it with a better radar or the communications it would need for the job... it is only this new upgrade with Su-35 and Su-57 stuff that makes it viable for the job.
I suspect they will have two tiers... Su-30s and MiG-35s as the cheapest and Su-57s and S-70s as the upper tier... but I would think the two seat Su-30 would do a better job unless the AI in the S-70s is very good. Over time it will probably get better and if the S-70 works out cheaper they might end up replacing the MiG-35s in that role with them...
But not every CAP requires Su-57s and S-70 drones...
F-22 has no ground attack, antiship, recon or jammig capacities.
As per design spec.... they were expecting to have other aircraft with it... F-15E and F-16s at the very least, and anti ship is US Navy territory... the F-22 is not a navy plane.
Su-35 has all of that but its big rcs with shorter range r-77-1 than meteor gives the advantage to Rafale.
Big RCS only matters when your radar is on and when your radar is on you can be detected too.
The Su-35 is also working within a rather large and power IADS... and the R-77M and R-37M make Meteor no advantage at all.
In ground attack mode the Rafale has the advantage with better sensors. Su-35 has the advantage in antiship role. Rafale has also the advantage in jamming with the spectra that is the best jammer on aircraft today.
Ignore the fact that in most roles not needing to carry external fuel tanks is an advantage... and also flight range?
Best jammer known by whom?
F-35 and f-18 are failures.
Important failures though... HATO isn't just going to bankrupt itself... it needs its white elephants... I assume white gold because they are certainly gold plated...
Typhoon doesn't participate to exercices against Rafale anymore.
F15 and f16 are jokes against Rafale. Just like su-30 and mig-29/35.
Yeah, before the Vietnam war the Americans thought the F-4 didn't need a gun and its BVR missiles meant those little primitive MiGs wouldn't even get close.... it was going to be a turkey shoot... a slaughter... and in 1980s HATO thought the same with their well trained pilots and manouverable 9g 4th gen fighters and their AIM-9L and M missiles... I remember them talking about how amazing their Mike and Lima missiles were...
R-77-1 is within same range as Meteor. It is a joke to state it is better.
R-77-1 is 110km... the R-77M will be 200-220km range model.
But I would expect the ramjet model they were developing and completed developing in 2012 it seems is probably going to be replaced with a scramjet model with much better performance.
Swiss tests were leaked and out the three (Grippen, Rafale, Typhoon) Rafale was the best in all parameters. Spectra is the best and everyone acknowledges this.
It even jammed slovak s-300PMU1.
The best in HATO is not the same as the best... and would like to see more evidence of it jamming an S-300 even if it is a 1970s based system...
Mig-35 jammer were supposed to be Italian... not russian btw.
For the contract with India.... obviously it would not be possible with Russian service aircraft...
Dassault admited at an air show its Rafale did jamm the S-300 (I'm not aware of how it happened but the S-300 couldn't lock on it).
The S-300 uses track via missile guidance so doesn't get the lock till the missile closes in on the target... were they actually launching real missiles...
And the company that sells the plane is not the most reliable source... is anyone else claiming it too?
Su-35 has reduced RCS from the front. The r-77 grids don't help reduce it. The r-37 is big and its ability to hit fighter needs to be proven. It was mainly made against AWACS.
The R-77s could be fitted with the grid fins folded if that was really an issue... they are likely made of composite materials and probably don't have any RCS at all.
The R-33 could engage targets that were pulling up to 4 g so were optimised to engage bombers and AWACS and also cruise missiles.
The R-37 is designed to engage 8g targets and it has a large HE payload with smart fusing that directs the fragments and explosion towards the target it is intercepting.
The leaks of the swiss tests can be found on the net. Rafale was far superior to Grippen (for which western fanboys says it has the best jammers) and Typhoon. Those are impartial test by the swiss airforce.
A western tug fest then... not really relevant to this thread.
Pastel on Su-35 do the same. It works with anti-radar and air to air missiles like R-77-1.
The Soviets invented that method of attack with their R-27EP missiles which are passive radar homing missiles designed to be launched against enemy aircraft with a SARH missile lock. If the target is an F-15 then they need to lock on to your plane with a radar beam for their Sparrow missile to fly towards... they can't turn it off or the Sparrow will miss. The R-27EP homes in on that radar beam and hits the source... the R-27EP is much faster and much longer ranged that Sparrow so even if fired slightly after the Sparrow it will likely hit first. More importantly the F-15 needs to keep pointing his radar at your plane to keep marking it or his missile will miss. After launching my faster flying longer ranged missile I am free to manouver... I can even turn around and fly away while my missile is chasing a closing target his missile is now chasing a receeding target... boom.
Obviously not so useful now with aircraft not using SARH missiles, but in theory the small missile R-27P should be able to use its ability to home in on an illuminating radar signal to hit AMRAAMs and Meteors and other ARH missiles... the bigger missile would not be needed because such missiles wont start scanning for targets until they are within 20-30km or so of the target, but the bigger missiles could be used against ground based SAMs that use SARH guidance... they have useful 40kg HE warheads...
Can it do it against an AESA working on many different frequencies at a time and changing them hundreds of time per second ?
It was designed for use against American planes with AESA radars so I would say yes...
They also have podded systems too.
I will spell it again, RADIATION. Do you know what that is? Frequency changing doesn't negate the fact it is still letting off Radiation. Radiation release will be picked up no matter what frequency it operates in or how it hops.
Frequency hopping is effective against primitive narrow band systems. The systems the Russians are putting on all their new systems are not narrow band...
Yeah but we are talking about using passive RWR to guide a missile so you need a constant track
Your western centric knowledge fails you.
You don't need a constant track to launch an ARH and for the R-27R/ER missiles, you don't need it either...
BTW if you need a constant track that means you are sending constant data updates to the missile in flight which the Su-35 will detect with its L band AESA radar...
The R-77 and R-27ER don't need constant target tracking... on launch they are sent to an intercept point calculated just before launch based on the targets location and speed and direction of travel... as your missiles travel to the intercept point you will periodically check to see that the target is continuing on the predicted course... if they are then you do nothing. If they change course or speed or altitude then your guidance system knows the limits of the missiles seeker so it knows if the current intercept point will still work or not... if not it calculates a new intercept point and sends new coordinates to the missile... once the missile is closer the R-77 launch aircraft does nothing... the R-77 turns on its radar and finds the target and illuminates it itself and attacks it... the R-27EP launch aircraft then starts to illuminate the target aircraft and the missile looks for the reflections and homes in on them.
Constantly scanning and tracking the target would instantly reveal it is under attack and for a BVR missile it could simply change direction and speed and altitude a dozen times and the missile will burn up too much speed and energy trying to follow it and drop from the sky short of the target.
One of the reasons SARH had such poor PK results for longer range shots.
It's not about a RWR that detects the signal. To track you need to triangulate (maybe I'm wrong that's why I asked if the su-35 RWR coukd work against an aesa) the signal and it depends on the frequency of signal (again maybe I'm wrong but that's how I see the thing). Aesa works on many frequency at the sme time when PESA work on just one. Frequency hoping wasn't my question.
Most RWRs are developed to detect all the frequencies enemy radars and radio communications systems can communicate in and as such they are broad band systems so frequency hopping is not so much an issue.
In use some frequencies go through weather better than others but on a clear day the frequencies that don't go through weather tend to be much more precise when it comes to detecting and tracking small things...
Modern jamming like DRFM is smart rather than powerfull.
Yes.... the ones the MiG-35 use and the Su-35 and Su-57 are particularly good too.
ODK-Klimov transform its construction biro to full cycle producer.
Nice... As mentioned in another article posted a while back that even the engine makers didn't make all the parts used in the engines they sold and production was often distributed across the country and in different countries... so while parts of engines were made in what is now the Ukraine... they have the same problem of needing Russian parts... the real difference is that the Russian companies have orders and contracts and funding to upgrade and start producing the bits they didn't make before.
New technology like 3D printing has revolutionised things too...
Pastel is meant to program anti-radar missiles and it doesn't matter if it is AESA, PESA, or old mechanical one or the jammer and to program the missile it have capabilities to triangulate it. It is no difference for Pastel to send anti-radar missile or R-77-1 AAM against the source of emmiting (radar, jammer,...).
Another difference with western systems... the old Soviet AS-11 anti radiation missile required a pod system that was used to receive information from the targeted radar and determine its position in 3 dimensional space so the missile wasn't just launched at the signal it was detecting... it was being launched at a position in space that was highlighted by that signal... if the missile was half way to the radar and the radar turned off the missile would continue to that location in space... if the target radar turned back on it could target it precisely but it was already going to explode within 20-30m of the target... and with a 150kg HE warhead any radar antenna were likely to get blown down.
The new aircraft have ESM suites that make all those calculations and detect targets so they don't need the pods any more... the newest version of the AS-11 is slightly smaller and has folding wings and will be carried internally by the Su-57... fully digital and able to engage a much broader range of emitting targets even after they turn off.
HARM and Shrike never had those features, though I believe GPS was added to the latest models of HARM... this century.
What do you mean by "stealth"? Signature management is here to stay... camouflage clothes do not make you invisible, but no one goes to war wearing pink.
Stealth meaning internal weapons, and a level of RCS that actually makes a difference at what range your aircraft can be detected by radar.
Essentially 5th gen only.
I think we have here more of the same US generated doctrinal distortion like we see in the carriers thread where the US approach ends up being considered the cannon, "stealth" must be ultra-expensive VLO design as the US does it, when probably doing completely differently would be much more sensible.
I don't agree. There are aircraft that were not designed to be stealthy that have had their designs adapted to reduce RCS like all the 4 th gen fighters, but when they hang a useful load of weapons you can see them at combat distances anyway. There are 5th gen fighters with internal weapons carriage... you could argue that stealthy planes are ultra expensive, but I would point at the Su-57 and say perhaps it is not stealth that makes them super expensive... it is the made in the USA sticker... and the games they play printing money and throwing it around like a snowball fight.
Other countries will no doubt do it differently.
They have no choice really... no country or even group of countries could justify spending 1.5 trillion US dollars on a medium weight stealth fighter... do you think MiG will get anywhere near that figure?
For instance KF-X with recessed AAMs is a perfectly valid approach IMO, at least by now. RCS going from 5-10 sqm to 0.5 is an important tactical advantage. 4G planes without specific shaping have difficulties to match new designs in that regard.
I agree it would be, but I rather doubt a fully armed fighter of the 4th generation will have a RCS from the front of less than 1m square and most will be more.... especially with external fuel tanks and inflight refuelling probes sticking out like the Rafale...
F-15 is in the same condition as MiG-29 in terms of being an old platform and therefore surpassed in many regards.
Rubbish... new engines new missiles new radar and both could be as good as any of the eurofag super fighters.
The US really does not have viable numbers of F-22s to be significant, and the F-35 is turning into a failure or the worst kind so I would think production numbers of the F-15 could double what they originally made...
Or they could come up with a cheap new fighter that is a scaled down F-15 that can carry most of what it carries but be cheaper to make and operate... they could call it the Meg-29 perhaps?
But the US planing has been so poor that none of their new platforms can substitute it properly... fortunately that is not the case in Russia.
Their planning has been brilliant... they are locked into producing 3,500 aircraft of a type that is a total failure that would have been cancelled years ago if they hadn't already committed everything to its success....
Only poor if they have to go to war.
Long range AAMs are being developed by US too of course.
Of course they are. And the Russians are developing short range anti missile missiles... a bit like IIR guided TORs, that will be used by the air force in their bombers and fighters to protect from AAMs and SAMs, by armoured vehicles to protect from anti armour and ground attack standoff weapons, and by ships to protect them from anti ship missiles or ground attack weapons used against ships.
No, and you repeating it does not make it true. You get pretty crazy with this issue, no idea why.
Well then lets imagine that MIG call a press conference and say their new MiG-35 is now in full scale mass production, 36 planes a year and fitted with a new photonic radar that can detect stealth aircraft from 500km range or more including B-2s and F-22s and F-35s... what would you say about it then?
My point was that VKS had MiG-29M available if they wanted to buy it. They didn't, it is arguable for what reasons, but that is the fact.
I explained the reasons they didn't buy it... it was multirole and more expensive than the cheaper Sukhoi alternative despite being cheaper to operate, why spend extra money on features you don't want?
And they didn't.
But things are different now... they want multirole and modern and the upgrades for the Su-27 to make them modern and fully multirole are not cheaper than the MiG-35... but teh MiG-35 will be cheaper to operate over time.
Russian experts or officials/servicemen, I don't locate the quote right now. It makes sense, if you incur the development expenses, that you do get something substantially cheaper and not a low percentage of savings / marginally higher numbers for the same money. The crucial advantage of the lo part of the mix is numbers, after all.
If you are buying more than you need then you are not saving money.
No indication until now that
To us... it was how they were planning to move forward in the 1990s when there was no money... now that they have money and are actually spending it... the logic has not changed... they are just waiting for the MiG-35 to get into production.
- Nobody has said yet, outside of this forum, that Su-30 will be the AWACS... Su-57 have an electronic co-pilot, Su-35 too, both have very powerful radars... nothing against the idea of using big planes with powerful radars as command posts and I have proposed myself that light fighters can be made much simpler, very much as loyal wingmans are being developed, but still we need to see Russians going this way, creating mixed regiments and supporting our predictions and guesses with some facts...
But logically can we not deduce that when they said the Su-35 and the Su-57 didn't need two seater versions because their AI copilot made that redundant, why would they need to upgrade the Su-30 with those systems... wouldn't it just make sense to replace those Su-30s with new Su-35s?
They could then just sell their Su-30s to Iran or North Korea or Cuba...
There used to be a separation of the PVO... basically an air intercept organisation that borrowed aircraft from the Air Force but had all the radars and SAMs for air defence of the country, and the Russian Airforce like Frontal Aviation... the PVO preferred bigger aircraft... Fiddlers, Foxhounds and Flankers, while Frontal Av prefered smaller planes like MiG-29 and Su-17 and MiG-27.
I would suspect new Su-30 and MiG-35 combo forces would be PVO type units.
Flankers have been indeed used for strike missions in Syria, that is what multirole fighters do.
Up until 2008 they weren't multi role... the only multirole Flankers were exports... Russia AF Flankers for the most part have been single role and even the ones that got upgrades... they didn't start buying air to ground munitions till well after about 2012... only Su-24 and 34 units got guided air to ground weapons.
VMF is equipping their Su-33 with SVP-24, suggests they do want to go from air defence only to multirole.
The Su-33 always had dumb bomb and unguided rocket capability... adding SVP-24 is a very cheap way of making the existing capability more accurate and more useful.
But please show me a photo of them integrating Onyx or Zircon to them and then I will consider it to have serious multirole potential, because otherwise they are just reusable cruise missiles effectively.
One of the main characteristics of a light fighter is that it is... light, am I wrong?
No. Depends on the meaning of the word light. The weight of the fighter is not the issue... there are not weight restrictions in combat where a lighter aircraft might be allowed in while a heavier one has to stand outside. This isn't about weight it is about cost. Cost to buy and cost to own and operate.
In that regard the MiG-29 has worked out "lighter" than the F-16 and the F-35.
I already explained my understanding on how fuel fraction and drag work in single and twin engine planes and how big planes benefit proportionally more from being twin engine, despite the added drag, that smaller ones. And have also shown actual fuel fractions of different planes and linked a ton of data in our specific threads in general military topics, enough for establishing facts at least at a basic level, if attention is paid. I feel did my part...
In my opinion all you have proven is that lighter planes should on paper be slightly lower drag compared with a totally different aircraft from a different country that had different requirements who started out with a totally different fuel fraction because those requirements were different.
I don't think it is even possible to create a cheap 5th gen stealth fighter, and by making it single engined and as small as you can possibly make it you are trying to do the impossible because it probably wont be very good.
Gripens are a case in point... you say the MIG-35 is obsolete because it is old... the Gripen has been shown to be totally inferior to its two European competitors... the fact that it is cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate is no consolation if they get shot down immediately by a superior enemy, or simply can't do the job.
Making the plane bigger and heavier is worth the extra money because you get a better weapon.
Fully agree... screw half arsed medium fighters with mediocre range and performance compared to heavy ones and mediocre operational costs compared to light ones.
There are two cars and a motor bike. A big SUV with 4 wheel drive we take skiing and the missus gets the goceries and takes the kids to sport or whatever they do on the weekend and for camping trips and holidays, the other car goes to work every day. The motorbike was a toy... very cheap to run, cheap to buy... goes faster than the other two vehicles... but no good for anything I actually want transport to do... helmet hair and bird shit and squashed bugs on my suit isn't popular at work... especially if it decides to rain. Can't get any groceries or kids on the bike in useful numbers.
The motor bike is a toy.... a show off thing... it is cheap, but if I could only have one vehicle it would have to be a normal modern medium sized car.
Cost more to run than the bike but does the jobs and is practical.
If the job was three blocks away a tiny bike might work... but even then walking is better for me.
Some nations cannot afford both so they buy medium fighters, the ones opting for a hi-lo mix should implement the idea properly, instead of developing two planes one of which is just a bit cheaper but substantially less capable.
Most countries don't need fighter planes at all and it is all just ego and pissing away money or you wont get more to spend next time.
The difference between the price of a medium fighter and a light fighter is not that big... in fact depending on the seller a medium plane can cost more than a brand new heavy 5th gen fighter that you get input on the design of....
If you mean light fighters like MiG-21 and F-5 then I agree.... if you mean light fighters like Gripen and F-35 then they are not cheap at all.
AFAIK the MiG-35 beat the Gripen in the Indian MRCA competition which suggests it was not more expensive...
Great, post them please, I already posted what I found.
I was on a thread in this forum... I seem to remember it being on the Su-35 thread.
Drones meant to be cheap companions of fighters are stealthy, made of new materials and have modern avionics too, like 5G planes
You talk about drones like there is one. Drones are meant to be all sorts of things... some of them are not cheap at all and were never meant to be because they are actually not intended to be expendible like a suicide drone.
You get your payload and systems and range / persistence requirements and get an airframe size, then you need to see what engine supports that, normally you make simulations with one or two engines.
Payload is a structure thing... an F-16 can carry a 7 ton payload but is lighter and smaller than an Su-24 with an 8 ton payload.... look at the empty weight payload capacity fuel capacity for the A-4 and that is a carrier capable aircraft...
Speed requirements would also come it to it as well...
A 5G plane with a 4G engine is as crappy as a F-15 with a J79.
The F-14 started life with crappy engines... if it bothers you that much just say it is an interceptor instead of a fighter and optimise it for top speed until you get better engines.
The Su-57 is hardly a dog at the moment and is poised to get better.
Actually most of them have implemented RCS reduction measures...
They also have camouflage paint but they are still not stealthy to the point where it actually matters... especially when armed.