Wrong. The 2006 offer was 14 years ago. They ask new parameters because technology has improved.
I said the parameters the Russian Air Force wanted in a new plane were different... how can that be wrong.... are you suggesting that Russian Air Force parameters now for a MiG-35 fighter are exactly the same as the parameters for the 2006 Indian MRCA competition?
Also a MiG built in 2006 would include quite a few western electronic components that they can no longer buy so how is that wrong too?
The new Mig35 is mainly for export. Russia will buy 6 or so for its aerobatic team if they are lucky.
The MiG-29M2 is for export.... most of Russias export customers who can afford 35s will be lured away by Sukhois snake oil salesmen...
Why do they make it now then ?
Because they are a Russian company and they make money selling planes... if India doesn't want their new planes they can keep upgrading and supporting the MiGs they do have, in the mean time new planes for the Russian Air Force is what they are concentrating on.
Exactly. Mig-35 is a new fighter but it's made on the basis of mig-29.
They are still making Su-35s and putting them into service... if they still have use for upgraded Su-27s why do you think there is no use for upgraded MiG-29s.
Given the choice I am sure India would have been much happier with local production of Mirage 2000s and the potential to keep upgrading them.
Mig-35 is being made now in 2020 when sukhoi has finished the su-57.
Making Su-35s was an important part of developing its stealthy counterpart, and the MiG-35 will be important in that regard too.
By putting things into service and using them they are mature by the time the new fighter is ready for service. There will still be problems to solve and deal with but you wont have problems from everything all at once because everything is brand new and only tested in a lab... like Ford and Zumwalt.
Mig should have done it before 2010 and moved on on a the LMFS. They are like 15 years late on the other.
MiG were not allowed to start paid official work on LMFS until the Su-57 is ready for serial production... which is now. If the MiG-35 was produced in 2010 they still would not have received funding for LMFS development till now.
A light fighter is also needed but mig-35 doesn't fit in that role.
It fits a light fighter role much better than a light fighter.
You guys have been bitching and moaning because the MiG-35 is not better than a Rafale or an Su-35... but it was never meant to be those fighters in the Russian Air Force... what it is supposed to be is a longer ranged better armed and equipped Tegas 9, or one of those chinese copies of the MiG-21.
For that it is fine.
They need one with stealth caracteristics, 1 engine and be cheap enough. Not something like f35 however.
Why would it need to be stealthy?... whose airspace will a short range light fighter be trying to penetrate?
It is cheap enough and developing a new big engine and making it stealthy is exactly what you need to do to make it an F-35...
You clearly need to check your eyes. None of them have anything in common with the others.
Nothing wrong with my eyes... the layout and planform are identical... both the Su-35 and Su-57 have widely spaced podded engines, they both have main wings and horizontal tail surfaces. They both have blended wing fuselage designs and two vertical tails. The stealthy one has a flattened from the top nose and its neck is shorter and of course its engines are more widely spaced and it has two weapon bays down its centreline and has fewer external weapon pylons.
Put 3 angle plan form line drawings of an Su-35, a MiG-35, an Su-57 side by side and then a 3 angle planform line drawing of a Rafale and play which of these things is not like the other with your average 8 year old kid and tell me they will pick out the Su-57 because it is the only fully stealthy 5th gen fighter.
They will pick the Rafale because it is the different one... the others look almost the same... even I find myself checking the tail area to see if it is a Fulcrum or a Flanker when I see a Russian plane flying... nothing new...35 years ago I was looking for wing root guns to see if that plane is an Su-17 or a MiG-21... the Su-9 and Su-11 looked even more like the MiG-21 but were much less often seen...
MiG-29 is not successful model, but this is not the end for the MiG company.
It has been in service for 50 years and is now their most numerous and modern carrier based fighter...
There is a big possibility, that MiG will not sell MiG-35 in any significant numbers neither to RuAF neither to foreign customers.
There is always that risk with any product... you can lead a horse to water...
MiG shouls rather more concentrate resources to MiG-31 modernizations, specially now, when it become important launching platform for Kinzhal missiles and anti-satelitte missiles. RuAF have far more interest in them, than in MiG-35.
Except that now that they have the job of making a new 5th gen fighter they will be looking at all the components of their best fighter and will be trying to move a generation ahead... but they should forget the MiG-35 and just pretend it never existed... perhaps they can look at the systems in the MiG-29 or even MiG-23 and make them two generations better.... I mean they make planes so why should they waste their time making planes for the Russian Air Force that has ordered some.... they should just forget about it...
According to an interview (naukatehnika.com/novyj-dvigatel-dlya-su-57.html) in March 2019 with the head designer of ОКБ it will be a variable bypass engine:
Variable bypass engines will actually be rather critical for a MiG-41 design... high bypass turbo fans are know for airliners and are excellent for subsonic cruise, but at very high flight speeds turbojets and turbofan engines become inefficient because the rotational speed of the blades risks them shearing off and failing, but obviously a ramjet with no turbine blades can go much faster without problems.
If they could take the existing engines and work out how to modify their intakes so that at speeds above mach 2 the amount of bypass air dramatically increases and that bypass air can in fact be used as a ramjet so the turbine engine can actually be run down to idle or even shut down then speeds like mach 4.2 as mentioned could be easily achieveable... assuming heat issues with the airframe and engine inlet can be dealt with...
Being able to change bypass levels would be an excellent way to make a modern jet engine more efficient... high bypass for low speed fuel efficient cruising... low bypass for supercruising, and all bypass ramjet mode for really high speeds...
Yes, paradoxically the advances in VLO design and self defence weapons / ECM / DIRCM countermeasures may end up with fighters solving engagements in a cannon fight... seems absurd I know, but there is a possibility to end up there,
Missiles are not hittiles yet... the AIM-9X that failed to hit an Su-22 in Syria was supposed to be a super missile you could not escape... the Americans bought it because it is supposed to be better than ASRAAM... though most likely better because it is American...
In case of need, Russia needs means to put those countries in their place fast and with minimum attrition, that is the best way of discouraging the responsible officials and their patrons abroad of trying silly things.
Even if we assume that is true... why do you think a much more expensive stealth light fighter like an F-35 would be more use than a MiG-35 or Su-35?
Yes of course. Radars like Rezonans-NE can be bought by almost everyone. But keep in mind I was not appreciating RCS reduction as a way of staying undetected, this is not the point for 4G platforms, but to make easier to disrupt the kill chain.
The kill chain for Russia includes all sorts of radar sources that are not effected by RCS the way fighter radars are and I rather suspect taht amongst the new air to air missiles the Russians show for the Su-57 will be the 9M100 IIR lock on after launch air to air missile with an IIR seeker and a two way datalink so it can find its own targets... that sort of seeker could just as easily be put on an R-37M missile and be launched at B-2s 200km away... what makes you think a eurocanard with a RCS is going to have a huge advantage in such a situation?
The point is that decreasing RCS is very expensive, but radars are getting more powerful and capable and alternatives to radar detection and tracking are also there and can be used to make all those expensive changes pointless.
I have the sensation that there is a political aspect in services wanting highly sophisticated multirole fighters as a way of concentrating prestige and power, even when they don't exactly know what to do with them or when other more crucial parts of the force structure is being neglected, many examples also from India come to mind.
Every single country in HATO buys a fighter plane, but how many of them contribute useful things like transports... instead of wasting money on shiny fast fighter jets, they could better use their funds to buy things that are more useful to the organisation instead of selfish petty little fighters they never really need.
It really does not matter what the mission is, every country seems to want to take their fighter planes, when it is all the other types that the US or France or the UK supplies that actually make the difference.
So I guess the single role fighter nowadays is not advantageous anymore, and would not avoid the increase in cost of air forces.
Considering all the other types they are buying, India could replace the 60 odd old model MiG-29s with 500 MiG-29M2s for the price of 100 Rafales that they could make in India and just use them as short range interceptors to compliment their Flankers and while they have air to ground capability they need never use it...
So, the reduction in AFs fleets was started by the increasing sophistication necessary to keep them capable in front of the level of perceived threats, and that has resulted in the need to make the planes multirole. Not even Russia is escaping this trend, even when they are practically the only ones still keeping some highly specialised and effective platforms in some critical roles.
The electronics in old planes was very slow clock speed stuff... with the MiG-23 the avionics were dedicated to that platform... to the extent that the radar used was the Sapphire-23, and the BVR AAMs used were the R-23R and R-23T... later upgraded to R-24s, the air to ground missile its BN ground attack version used was the Kh-23, HATO codename AS-7 Kerry... the point was that when the processor is very simple and very slow then everything is hard wired and fixed and an upgrade means physically rewiring new hardware in.
The new modern multirole fighters and aircraft you are talking about have much more powerful processors, which means instead of being a hand held calculator, where to upgrade it with new functions you would need to physically redesign the case and add a few buttons, which would be enormously expensive... the calculator programme on your Operating System is all software and uses the functions of the complex central processing chip in your computer... to add a function you just alter the software to perform the new calculation and add rules on how the result is displayed.
Just because modern computers and networks allow multi function design and use does not mean you have to use it that way...
The MiG-23 was an interceptor/fighter, the MiG-27 was a light strike aircraft with self defence capacity in air to air only.
A MiG-29M2 would be a better interceptor/fighter than any model MiG-23, and a better light strike aircraft than any model MiG-27 including the M and the K models, but that does not mean you can replace 50 MiG-23s and 50 MIG-27s with 50 MiG-29M2s.
The MiG-29M2 might be 5 times more capable than the MiG-23, but that does not mean you can get away with only using 10 to replace 50.
If you have 6 x 8 plane squadrons and you had two planes spare then you will still need 6 x 8 plane squadrons, and it wouldn't hurt to have spare aircraft too.
The new MiGs will cost more than the old MiGs but that is the price of progress.
The MiG-23 probably had better flight range than the early MiG-29s but the MiG-23 was replaced by the Su-27...
Sorry, I dont understand that.
Computer game called Half Life, where a lab in the US opens up portals for an alien invasion and ends the world as we know it...
Garry, they restarted the engine production line, no point in arguing they don't need the engines...
So they restarted the engine production lines... we know from information we have that there are no engine production lines that produce everything for any one particular engine and that engines are enormously complex things that contain a lot of components that are made all over the place, and that many of the engines we consider Ukrainian have parts made in the Ukraine and perhaps are assembled there but equally have parts made in Russia too... are you suggesting they are setting up a new assembly line for jet engines to support the dozen or so Su-33s that exist?
I rather suspect they would go into the Su-30s and Su-27s and indeed Su-34s first, and Su-33s if there is any left over and they are still operating.
STOBAR operations are critically dependent on thrust. If any of the Flankers would need the new engine, it is the Su-33.
Yes, of course... it needs brand new new generation engines because they just gave it an avionics upgrade that probably reduced its dry weight by a ton by swapping out enormous old boxes of 286 generation electronics to replace it with the electronics in your cell phone...
To me it would make full sense, but it is perfectly possible that VMF-MA has no budget for something like that, just to name a possible reason to stay like today, or maybe they already paid for the restart of the production line and cannot backtrack now... we just don't know.
I would think they would give them the minimum upgrades as they are doing and when their replacement is ready spend the money on that instead... whether it is the LMFS or a naval Su-57... personally I hope the latter.
Let us keep in mind that subs also have a dependency on air superiority at sea... so the possibility of using them will depend on VMF's ability to prevent the operation of airborne and sea based enemy ASW assets.
the ocean is huge and having ASW assets around your carrier groups makes sense but the range of the weapons these subs will be carrying will make that search area huge and the action of searching for subs is not quiet so they should be able to tell where they are at any one time... to find new subs you need to use active sonar.... which is very noisy.
Ok, so this happened before the MiG-35 was born.
The 286 in the late 1980s really made it possible, and most of the people I used to chat with in the late 1990s on the interweb were shocked when I told them the new F-22 would be using a 486 processor... they all demanded the latest Pentiums would be used at the very least, but the newer chips were not rugged and dust proof enough... look at the latest computer chips in computers now... the latest fighters in service right now have nothing like them in their little computer networks...
The first MiG-29M flew in 1988... I believe at that time I had an Amiga 500... a 16 bit computer with 512K of RAM and I spent $250 dollars to get the 512K RAM expansion card, so I had a 1MB computer... I was the envy of all my friends... spent another $250 and got an external 3 1/2 inch floppy disk drive as well... luxury... previous computers like the Commodore 64 used an audio cassette tape drive, and my Sinclair Spectrum ZX-81... well you typed the programme out before you could run it through your TV...
The original idea aged badly it seems. Currently there is a certain overlapping of their functions and the MiG got marginalized by the Flanker due to (in our opinion) higher capabilities and not so different costs.
You could say the same with the F-15 and F-16... the latter ended up being just as expensive but never quite as capable as the F-15, of course the difference is that the F-15C model was never really adapted to multirole use... perhaps that was the mistake the Soviets and Russians made... both aircraft have grown towards each other and now cover too many areas. Too many overlaps.
Perhaps the solution is to change the Su-35 into the Su-35C air to air fighter and interceptor with no air to ground features. The Su-34E can be air to ground strike aircraft replacing the Su-24, and the MiG-29M2 could be the short range strike and light fighterbomber.
You say the feature of the Su-35 and the MiG-35 overlap so they don't need the MiG, but in actual fact a short range fighter is more important than having a separate and rather expensive rather heavy strike Su-34 when the Su-35 could do that role too... hell it would make more sense to get rid of the 300 Su-34s and increase the numbers and capabilities of the Tu-22M3Ms instead... better range, better payload, larger sized aircraft so more potential...
The VKS had also to concentrate in as few platforms and planes as possible to keep their costs low during the difficult years, now it is possible that a new window will open for the MiG or another medium o light fighter, as they increase their aircraft numbers and reopen airbases.
If they want to expand into the far east and arctic then a smaller and lighter aircraft could do it cheaper... they don't need to cover the entire arctic... the air bases will be near military bases and areas of strategic interest so a shorter range fighter to protect that is all they really need.
Ferry flights between bases can be done with three external tanks and an inflight topup... 5,000km range would be plenty even in such a large region...
One would think a Su-30 with AAMs on the exterior stations and A2G ordnance can carry an strike without escort, that sounds interesting to me, at least when the targets do not demand extreme amounts of payload to take care of them.
The exterior weapon pylons on Flankers only carry R-73 AAMs, and targets attacked by a non dedicated ground attack aircraft like Su-30 would probably need to be standoff weapons... ie rather heavier than the Kh-38s the MiG-35s would be using...
I would not mix MiG-31 in the lot, also would not consider Su-57 medium fighter.
Why would they ignore it just because you do?
Su-57s empty weight is most likely lighter than Su-27s isn't it?
They had the LFI program with several single engine proposals, they had the S-37 too. As I said, the current situation proves nothing about the Russian doctrinal posture in that regard.
Yes, and mention the new LMFS programme aircraft will have two engines suggest those single engine suggestions failed.
Increased internal volume, increased lifting surface and inferior structural characteristics, due to the presence of big holes in the fuselage.
Wouldn't that all reduce dry weight rather than increase it? Increased internal volume for fuel and weapons suggests larger weapons and fuel capacity, but also lower dry weight.
Hopefully we get to know the truth in a not so distant future, but it seems unlikely, given empty weight is not even available for the Su-35, which is an export plane.
They have no reason to make it easy for us...
These properly translated chapters of Combat Approved are being very useful. In the MiG-35's chapter they confirm it is heavier than the -29, with 1600 ft lower ceiling and without TVC... the explanation to this by Tarasenko is a rather awkward moment
They unified the design structurally with the MiG-29KR carrier aircraft... what carriers can the F-16 operate from?
1,600ft? From a Russian source? can you confirm they were not talking in arshins?
I do think it has less drag, but the wetted area does not seem to be clearly inferior, the plane is very flat with big lifting surfaces. It may have less space available for fuel than a Su-35, maybe, but interestingly their tanks are not filled with foam now, the fire prevention system is based on gas instead.
Flat is not the same as thick.... in terms of drag flat is better than tall isn't it?
You know it is not that simple. We already discussed that nobody is "dodging" missiles in high energy state, rather the maneouvering is kinematic and based in getting the missile in an inferior energy state vs. the fighter. Fast acceleration, good turning, climbing and similar elements of the fighter's dynamic capabilities are demanded for such tasks.
Not happy with your view that smaller lighter agile planes are somehow safer... maybe from a missile at the edge of its envelope, but when a missile turns on its ARH seeker and the target is right in the centre of its view no amount of dodging or dancing is going to save it... smaller lighter also means fragile and no empty spaces for fragments to pass through without damaging something critical to keeping the plane flying.
Quite possibly you are right, I already said myself that countries with less resources / threats are rather buying medium fighters than the hi-lo mix of bigger air forces.
I am saying it is the sensible thing to do... I would also say no country in the world would even consider it... that sort of thing isn't done... New Zealand is considered weird because it didn't want to buy worn out second hand F-16s from the US to replace our obsolete Skyhawks... any country with the navy to come all the way down here to invade is not going to be bothered by two dozen F-16s and I doubt we could afford that many anyway, and with all the peacekeeping ops with do with the UN there is never going to be a situation where we turn up with a half dozen F-16s and they say... WOW thanks for bringing those... nobody else thought to bring old obsolete fighters to this party... take them round the back and park them with the 500 F-16s that everyone else brought... yours should be easy to find when you leave because everone else brought much newer more capable models and the bad guys in this dust up don't have an air force... so park them up and come back and see us... BTW you didn't bring any transport planes we are actually desperately short of those...
[quote]It also looks like a YF-23,-/quote]
Only in the sense that the YF-23 looks like an F-22 and a MiG-25 that is made a little bit stealthy and has had either the vertical or horizontal tail surfaces ripped off and then the remaining surface rotated to the 45 degree position to do the job of both... probably not as well...
Otherwise different shaped wing and engines pushed together and the cockpit canopy different.