Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28731
    Points : 29261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  GarryB Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:19 am

    It all comes down to total cost per flight hour, abd yes that is computed over the life of the plane so airframe cost and engine overhaul costs are part of the equation.

    Rubbish.

    Flight hour costs are fuel and checks and tests routinely done on an aircraft after it has flown as an average.

    If you land the plane and on inspection you find that a metal washer has been ingested into the engine and several blades in one engine are destroyed and the entire engine needs to be replaced how does that fit in to the flight cost per hour for the aircraft... you are not going to get FOD on every flight, but the price of a new engine is going to sharply increase operational costs.

    Flight cost per hour basically means all the checks and tests made to the aircraft every time it flys... it means unscrewing and removing some panels to access electronics and replacing minor components and testing larger components to find problems before they become serious... like temperature increases in parts of the engine might need the engine to be removed and inspected, but otherwise not something you would normally do.

    Modern computer systems can do diagnostics and can be fitted with sensors throughout the aircraft to indicate a problem before something bursts into flames or falls off.

    The MiG-21 was relatively cheap because its components were cheap and replacing a lot of parts wasn't expensive or very time consuming.

    The original support routine for the MiG-29 was wasteful of parts, but for a war machine it meant short periods of maintenance and down time, and more time flying and doing its job. You would end up throwing out parts before they needed to be thrown out but in combat being able to last 5,000 hours for an engine or airframe is meaningless.

    The F-35s enormous price per flying hour comes from its special coating... if its amazing computer system indicated a problem it would locate the electronic component that needed attention or replacement... on the much cheaper F-16 or MiG-29 you get a screwdriver and take off the panel and check the item... if it is faulty you replace it and screw the panel back on and then test it via the computer network... if everything is OK you are good to go.

    With the F-35 you get the sander out and sand down the edge of the panel you need to open... clean around the screws, which you then unscrew to open the panel... the screws and joins of the panel will have tape over them... sand down to the tape and then peel off the tape to reveal the panel edge and screw heads. Unscrew and remove the panel and find the problem... solve it and then replace the panel put fresh tape around the panel edge and over the screws that are now suitably tightened.... and then spray the RAM material over the panel and the panel joins and screws making sure to cover the tape and every area you sanded off to a nice even finish and then wait 48 hours for the RAM material to cure properly and then you can fly the plane again... little wonder it is so expensive... all the more so because sometimes the funny signals and problems from one module is because something else has failed and is giving it the wrong information so it isn't working because something else is broken... which might be under a different panel....

    Flight hours cost does not include airframe life or engine life or the cost of serious items like replacing radar elements or avionics components... it is the cost of normal maintenance to keep the aircraft running including items that wear out with normal use at the rate they are replaced.

    Therefore replacement on schedule means replacing parts that might not need replacing yet so it can be more expensive than inspections, but inspections take more time, but allow parts to be used more efficiently as they can be replaced when they need to be replaced.

    It can also mean faults where something is getting excessively worn because there is a problem can be detected and corrected.

    Replacement on a schedule is great for war... fuel it arm it and fly it.

    Inspections means check it and then fuel it and arm it and fly it.

    Yes most airframes can have service extended.

    So for instance there were amazing claims of airframe hours for the F-35... 6K or 8K flight hours, but in practise they were getting 2K because of problems.... the flight costs didn't jump at all at that revelation and they should have quadrupled...

    Equally if airframe life counts then life extensions should make the operational flight costs become cheaper... does that happen retroactively?

    A plane that cost 8K dollars per hour to maintain gets a 2K hour airframe life extension... does that mean it only cost 6K dollars per hour previously?

    Or does it mean for the extra 2K hours the price double drops because spread over an extra 2K hours the hourly rate goes even lower so it becomes 4K per hour to operate...

    Sometimes with deep inspections, and sometimes with some parts replacements.

    Which is going to be different for each individual aircraft... what happens if one pilot pulls 12g in an emergency during a flight... will that aircraft have the same cost per flight hour...

    I wonder how many Tejas a mig 35 can take on and defeat. ... and considering the Tejas engines are from GE, the MIG is proabably cheaper.

    A better question would be with American engines and needing US dollars to buy parts and support will the Tejas be any cheaper to operate than a MiG-35?

    Quick question, which variants of the MIG-29 have FBW?

    All the new models of course (29M, 29KR, 35).

    For all the hype about FBW the amusing thing is that high offboresight AAMs and helmet mounted sights turned out to be more important during tests in Germany in the 1990s... the old MiG-29B model beat all the western fighters including the super dooper F-16 with its FBW system.

    But in general I don't agree a much more expensive fighter is "cheaper" because it needs less overhauling.

    A general rule of thumb for most fighters is that the purchase price is normally similar to the life cost of the fighter... so 120 million for an F-35 will probably cost another 120m over its lifespan in operational costs... I suspect the cost of the Rafale for India was because they built a lot of its life span costs into the purchase price.

    That is the logical strategy when your pieces are cheap compared to doing complex testing of the plane, with modern systems that is not the case anymore, but that defeats the purpose of having a cheap plane.

    One of the improvements of the SMT upgrade was computerising of the systems so internal diagnostics and internal sensors could be used to detect problems early before they led to catastrophic failures. It made problem solving and repair simpler and easier and cheaper using smarter components.

    You can have a simple computer that does all the things you need it to do without needing some bleeding edge money pit... I have a cheap $70 dollar tablet with USB ports and WiFi to watch movies in bed at night if I want.

    A 17 cm screen 30cm from my face is effectively a 3m screen on the other side of my room... but cheaper to buy and uses less power.

    ahmedfire, lancelot and Scorpius like this post

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1069
    Points : 1101
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  mnztr Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:58 am

    GarryB wrote:
    It all comes  down to total cost per flight hour, abd yes that is computed over the life of the plane so airframe cost and engine overhaul costs are part of the equation.

    Rubbish.


    Ok don't take my word for it. Maybe the RAND corp can convince you:

    https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1100/RR1178/RAND_RR1178.pdf
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7285
    Points : 7434
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:06 pm

    mnztr wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    It all comes  down to total cost per flight hour, abd yes that is computed over the life of the plane so airframe cost and engine overhaul costs are part of the equation.

    Rubbish.


    Ok don't take my word for it. Maybe the RAND corp  can convince you:

    https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1100/RR1178/RAND_RR1178.pdf

    It may or may not be true, but the source leaves much to desire. Rand Corp is a think tank, probably the mother of all Atlantacists think tanks, and it's compromised primarily of sycophants and propagandists. One of the most ridiculous claims they've made is that 'they' came up with the idea of aerial refueling when in reality it was a Russian immigrant named Alexander P. de Seversky who came up with the idea.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_P._de_Seversky

    miketheterrible likes this post

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1069
    Points : 1101
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  mnztr Thu Apr 01, 2021 5:24 pm

    Well they are a well respected think tank and they clearly deliniate how verious cost models of aircraft are considered. In Canada where we are in a buying cycle for the new fighter, total lifecycle costs are what is considered. For our new Frigate its estimated at $219B over 40 years, including the ships. This is for just 15 frigates!!! (this is Canada PBO estimate) .
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 5693
    Points : 5667
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  miketheterrible Thu Apr 01, 2021 5:32 pm

    Never heard propaganda mouthpiece Rand viewed as well respected before.

    Man, please don't make the rest of us Canadians look stupid

    Big_Gazza and Backman like this post

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1069
    Points : 1101
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  mnztr Thu Apr 01, 2021 5:52 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:Never heard propaganda mouthpiece Rand viewed as well respected before.

    Man, please don't make the rest of us Canadians look stupid

    The Canadian establishment is stupid. They always look to the US for how to do things. Since the Americans are clearly stupid that can only mean Canadians are more stupid. RAND corp is a source or propaganda, but in aircraft costing strategy its purely a technical exercise so ideology does not really enter into it. New frigates are all being handled by US defence contractors even though the USN has botched so many procurement and design cycles its laughable. Ford class - disaster, Zumwalt class - disaster, Littoral class - disaster. Hey!! Lets go sell those dumb canucks some overpriced floating targets!!

    Big_Gazza likes this post

    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 5693
    Points : 5667
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  miketheterrible Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:15 pm

    You, I and everyone knows, without even needing nonsense like Rand corp, to tell us how we all get screwed in weapon procurements. Excessive prices and lacking quality.
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1069
    Points : 1101
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  mnztr Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:40 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:You, I and everyone knows, without even needing nonsense like Rand corp, to tell us how we all get screwed in weapon procurements.  Excessive prices and lacking quality.

    All the costing model is, is how you measure and sum up all the ways you are screwed and compare how you are screwed from one contractor to another.
    Backman
    Backman

    Posts : 625
    Points : 633
    Join date : 2020-11-11

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Backman Thu Apr 01, 2021 10:34 pm

    I read the last 2 pages and I'm still not exactly sure what is being talked about.

    Someone is saying that Mig 29/35 operating costs are high ?

    kvs likes this post

    avatar
    limb

    Posts : 147
    Points : 155
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  limb Fri Apr 02, 2021 12:29 am

    Is the Zhuk ready for mass production. One good thing about the MiG-29K is that it excels at interception, so even with reduced load and launched from the Kuznetsov it could act as a makeshift AWACs and antiship missiles destroyer.

    GarryB likes this post

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1069
    Points : 1101
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  mnztr Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:01 am

    Backman wrote:I read the last 2 pages and I'm still not exactly sure what is being talked about.

    Someone is saying that Mig 29/35 operating costs are high ?

    Mig claims the cost per flight hour of the Mig-35 is reduced by 2.5 times vs the MIG-29.
    Finty
    Finty

    Posts : 91
    Points : 91
    Join date : 2021-02-10
    Location : Great Britain

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Su-35 vs. MiG-35: Comparing the Capabilities of Russia’s New ‘4++ Generation’ Fighter Jets

    Post  Finty Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:32 am

    The days when the USSR had 24 squadrons of MiG 29s in East Germany now seem rather distant. Meanwhile, back in 2021...

    https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/su-35-vs-mig-35-comparing-the-roles-and-capabilities-of-russia-s-new-4-generation-fighter-jets

    Alongside the Su-57 stealth fighter and Su-34 ‘Hellduck’ strike fighter, Russia’s new generation of fighter jets which have begun to enter service from 2014 have included two ‘4++ generation’ fighter jets - which represent heavily enhanced derivatives of combat tested Soviet designs. The Su-35 entered service in 2014 as a modern derivative of the Su-27 Flanker heavyweight air superiority fighter - a platform designed to take on the elite of the Western Bloc’s air fleet which in the Su-27’s case was represented by the F-15C Eagle, and in the case of its successor was represented by the F-22 Raptor. The MiG-35 meanwhile entered service from June 2019, and is a heavily enhanced derivative of the MiG-29 Fulcrum - a platform with a medium weight comparable to the American F-18 Hornet which is intended to deploy from bases closer to the frontlines. While both the MiG-35 and the Su-35 deploy many similar technologies, the two are fundamentally different designs which are as complementary as their Cold War predecessors. An assessment of the capabilities of both fighters and of their key differences can provide significant insight into the nature of both programs and their possible futures.


    The Su-35 deploys the Irbis-E radar, which can detect most fighter sized targets at ranges of over 400 kilometres, can detect stealth fighters at ranges of over 80km and can track up to 30 airborne targets simultaneously. The MiG-35’s radar is more sophisticated, and is the first active electronically canned array (AESA) radar installed on a Russian frontline fighter, but is also much lighter than the Irbis-E meaning the Su-35 will retain a significant advantage in situational awareness. Less is known about the MiG-35’s detection range, but the types of munitions it has been equipped with indicate it can track enemy aircraft at ranges of over 400km as well - although this range may be lower for smaller fighter sized targets with lower radar cross sections. Both fighters deploy the same classes of munitions, and they are the only serving Russian fighter designs compatible with the new R-37M hypersonic air to air missile - a Mach 6 platform with powerful sensors capable of engaging aircraft at ranges of up to 400km. This missile will allow the fighters to comfortably outrange all potential adversaries in beyond visual range engagements, with the latest Chinese and American air to air missiles having half the range or less and being considerably slower. Both fighters can also deploy a range of standoff cruise missiles such as the Kh-35 and Kh-31, although the MiG-35 also benefits from access to the newer Kh-38 which the Su-35 is not known to be capable of operating.

    Both the Su-35 and the MiG-35 are similarly manoeuvrable and make use of twin engines with three dimension thrust vectoring - the only two active fighters in the world other than the Chinese J-10C to incorporate such technologies which provide supermanoeuvrability. The original Su-27 and MiG-29 were already found to have far superior manoeuvrability to their Western counterparts - confirmed when the latter was tested after it was inherited by a reunified Germany - and this advantage will be considerably greater on their next generation derivatives. Other improvements similarly applied to both designs include more powerful and fuel efficient engines, superior endurance and greater fuel storage, expanded weapons payloads, lighter and more durable frames due to higher use of composite materials, and state of the art electronic warfare systems, data links and cockpit displays. The Su-35, while larger, has benefitted from limited applications of stealth technology reducing its radar cross section by over 70% relative to the Su-27. The MiG-35 is not known to have benefitted from similar stealth technologies.

    While both fighters are capable of reaching similar speeds of around Mach 2.25, the Su-35 benefits from a higher operational altitude and much longer range - allowing it to penetrate deep behind enemy lines and patrol greater areas even with a full weapons load. The MiG-35’s maximum operational altitude is approximately 20% lower. While the Su-27 and MiG-29 had a standard payload of 8 and 6 missiles respectively, the Su-35 and MiG-35 expand these to 12-14 and 8 missiles each. Far superior endurance means these heavier payloads can be carried without significant compromises to range.

    While overall the Su-35 appears to be the more powerful fighter, albeit a more expansive one, the MiG-35 does retain a number of critical advantages. The fighter’s operational costs are reportedly under 20% those of the MiG-29 - making it one of the cheapest fighters in the world to operate despite its considerable weight and high end capabilities. This, moreso that the lower acquisition cost, allows operators to deploy the fighter in much larger numbers than the Su-35 and to train skilled pilots at a minimal cost. The MiG-35’s lower maintenance requirements allow it to generate more sorties in any set period of time, and thus maintain a greater presence in the air. Less time on the ground, combined with its ability to operate from shorter runways including makeshift ones, makes it less vulnerable to airstrikes on airbases than the heavier Su-35.

    Ultimately the Su-35 and MiG-35 share many similar design concepts and technologies, but are intended for different roles with each having its advantages. The Su-35 is a higher end platform which can be better relied on to take on the elite heavyweights of enemy fleets such as Raptors, but the MiG-35 can still hold its own against even higher end adversaries and retains many very considerable performance advantages over the majority of Western fighters including newer designs such as the Gripen-E, F-16V, F-18E and Rafale. Russia’s greater focus on heavyweight fighters at the expense of acquiring lighter aircraft means that it is likely to focus more on acquiring the Su-35, much as it prioritised manufacturing of the Su-27 and Su-30 over the MiG-29 after the Cold War’s end. This has come at the expense of fleet size however, and operating heavy fighters with higher operational costs means the Russian Air Force fields a lot less squadrons that it could have otherwise. With Russia unlikely to seek to expand its Air Force with more squadrons of lighter aircraft in the near future, MiG-35 purchases will be limited - although the fighter is still expected to enter service in respectable numbers with over 150 reportedly planned. It is likely that the fighter will be fielded in greater numbers by export clients which are looking to deploy larger and more diverse fleets with a lesser focus on heavyweight platforms.

    mnztr likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28731
    Points : 29261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  GarryB Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:02 am

    All the costing model is, is how you measure and sum up all the ways you are screwed and compare how you are screwed from one contractor to another.

    I am sure RAND wants to include airframe life and engine life into the calculations for operational costs of aircraft because western manufacturers constantly inflate their airframe and engine life specifications, and also overcharge, so it is a good way to pretend they are more affordable... but there are other factors like where you have to send your engines for overhaul or upgrade.

    If you are a central or south american country and have to send your helicopter engines to Russia for overhaul of course it is going to not be cheap or very quick, but Mil setting up engine and overhaul facilities in Mexico or Brazil would make operational costs much much cheaper.

    I read the last 2 pages and I'm still not exactly sure what is being talked about.

    Someone is saying that Mig 29/35 operating costs are high ?

    MiG is claiming operational costs for MiG-29M/29KR/35 are much cheaper than for the original MiG-29.

    The discussion is from people who don't believe them.

    Mig claims the cost per flight hour of the Mig-35 is reduced by 2.5 times vs the MIG-29.

    MiG also claimed the MiG-29SMT upgrade reduced operational costs by 40%.

    How to convert times into percent I don't know.

    I have already explained why the MiG-29 was relatively expensive to maintain... it is a weapon of war that just needs fuel and weapons and you can fly it for 500-1,000 hours which is plenty enough for most conflicts without having to do very much at all to it... assuming it is not damaged.

    The new designs have built in monitoring equipment and sensors that warn of problems to make fixing problems faster and easier.

    although the MiG-35 also benefits from access to the newer Kh-38 which the Su-35 is not known to be capable of operating.

    The Su-35 should be able to operate all their new weapons just like the MiG-35 and Su-57. The Su-35 should be able to carry some heavier weapons that the smaller MiG-35 wont be able to carry, but certainly the MiG should have an excellent array of toys it can deploy.

    The Su-35, while larger, has benefitted from limited applications of stealth technology reducing its radar cross section by over 70% relative to the Su-27. The MiG-35 is not known to have benefitted from similar stealth technologies.

    Both the Su-27 and MiG-29 were developed and produced in a period when RCS was not a consideration, so I would expect both the Su-35 and MiG-35 will have dramatic improvements in RCS, but they are not by any measure stealth aircraft... more a case of going from enormous to decent for their design RCS.

    The fighter’s operational costs are reportedly under 20% those of the MiG-29 - making it one of the cheapest fighters in the world to operate despite its considerable weight and high end capabilities.

    Which suggests the MiG-35 operational costs claims are half that of the MiG-29SMT upgraded MiG-29 which improved costs by being 40% cheaper.

    The MiG-35’s lower maintenance requirements allow it to generate more sorties in any set period of time, and thus maintain a greater presence in the air. Less time on the ground, combined with its ability to operate from shorter runways including makeshift ones, makes it less vulnerable to airstrikes on airbases than the heavier Su-35.

    The purpose of the light fighter in a high low mix is a smaller lighter cheaper numbers aircraft that has high availability rate and can be used as a bomb truck that could be deployed to rough airstrips closer to the fight.

    Ultimately the Su-35 and MiG-35 share many similar design concepts and technologies, but are intended for different roles with each having its advantages.

    They are actually different enough for both to be useful, and the cost factor means you can buy and use a lot of MiGs... which will fill in a lot of gaps.

    The talk of the Su-35 being similar speed but double range is heard by accountants who think an Su-35 can therefore cover twice the area of a MiG-35 so you can save money by having half as many of the bigger longer ranged planes covering your airspace... but Su-35s and MiG-35s fly at about the same speed, so you end up with much worse coverage because when you increase the radius of a circle by 1/3 you triple the volume of space within that circle... therefore doubling the radius of the circle increases the internal area of the circle by about four times.... so four times the area to cover at the same speed means you actually will need four times more aircraft to give the same amount of coverage.

    Effectively it is cheaper to use a mix of bigger and more expensive to buy and operate aircraft together with smaller and cheaper aircraft and then you can pick and choose where and when to use them to optimise your costs.

    In the far north and far east where the distances between airfields are huge a bigger aircraft makes sense but if you are at an airfield protecting an OTH radar then you don't want a long range aircraft taht could be called away for something else... smaller aircraft to protect the radar station and the things nearby make rather more sense.

    Equally in more densely populated areas with lots of airfields smaller aircraft mean better coverage and lower operating costs.

    Finty likes this post

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1069
    Points : 1101
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  mnztr Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:03 pm

    Reality (god willing) is that most MIG-29s will neverr fire a shot in anger, so their primiary use is training and patrols. This is why they stay in service for such a long time. In an actual connflict no one really cares about long airframe or engine life as the plane will either be lost or sustain battle damage.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28731
    Points : 29261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  GarryB Sat Apr 03, 2021 4:21 am

    Reality (god willing) is that most MIG-29s will neverr fire a shot in anger, so their primiary use is training and patrols.

    I totally agree....

    In an actual connflict no one really cares about long airframe or engine life as the plane will either be lost or sustain battle damage.

    This is market forces... the original MiG-29 is a weapon of war but more expensive to keep and operate during peace time... customers reject such practical designs these days... they prefer it cheaper to own at the expensive of more difficult to maintain an operate under the harsh conditions of war.

    For most of them that war may never come so the reduced operational costs make more sense... a cheap easy to use patrol aircraft makes more sense than something super expensive to buy and to operate like the F-35 or (to slightly lessor extents) Typhoon or Rafale...

    I think the irony is that it was not long ago people were praising the YF-17 as a cheap light simple fighter and why are the Russians so stupid that they can't make a simple light cheap fighter too... well it seems they did it with the safety of two engines.
    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 4315
    Points : 4397
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  flamming_python Thu Apr 08, 2021 4:58 am

    The MiG-35 needs to be considerably cheaper than the Su-35 in both up-front and operational costs else it is pointless.
    lancelot
    lancelot

    Posts : 163
    Points : 165
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  lancelot Thu Apr 08, 2021 11:18 am

    GarryB wrote:I think the irony is that it was not long ago people were praising the YF-17 as a cheap light simple fighter and why are the Russians so stupid that they can't make a simple light cheap fighter too... well it seems they did it with the safety of two engines.

    The F/A-18 Hornet was not that much of an export success either. It sold even less than the MiG-29.

    2.5x cheaper is 40% the cost i.e. 60% cheaper. 1-1/2.5=0.6

    The MiG-35 is a lot more capable than the MiG-29. It has more range, more hardpoints, more engine power, and fly-by-wire.
    If you do not care that much about the avionics upgrades you are better off purchasing the MiG-29M which is a lot cheaper.
    Which it seems is what the export customers have mostly been doing thus far.

    Finty likes this post

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7285
    Points : 7434
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:35 pm

    MiG-35 will be equipped with artificial intelligence

    dino00 and Finty like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28731
    Points : 29261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  GarryB Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:59 am

    The MiG-35 is a lot more capable than the MiG-29. It has more range, more hardpoints, more engine power, and fly-by-wire.
    If you do not care that much about the avionics upgrades you are better off purchasing the MiG-29M which is a lot cheaper.
    Which it seems is what the export customers have mostly been doing thus far.

    I have said it before, but will say it again... the main difference between the MiG-35 and MiG-29M is the avionics and systems... the MiG-35 has the best of everything, while the MiG-29M has new stuff but not state of the art... ie it would have a PESA instead of a more expensive and more capable AESA radar for instance.

    The MiG-35 is more capable but would be more expensive to buy in decent numbers, while the MiG-29M would be a capable reliable workhorse... sort of like a high low mix using the same airframe... cheap to operate.... not too expensive to buy in useful numbers.

    For the 10 billion India wanted to spend on its MRCA programme they probably could have bought 50 MiG-35s plus 150 MiG-29Ms.

    They would have 200 airframes the same... they can decide which is single seater and which is twin seater because you can change between the two.

    They could take 5 years of operational use with the two types side by side to decide what expensive stuff in the MiG-35 is worth it, and what is not worth the cost... so after 5 years they can upgrade the MiG-29Ms with the bits of the MiG-35 that are real value for money. With five years of development there should be stuff ready to upgrade their MiG-35s... their five years experience would allow them to suggest upgrades and improvements with MiG, so in 5 years time they will have 200 proven and capable fighters where 150 are MiG-35U meaning upgraded 29Ms, and 50 will be 35Ms.

    If the upgrades they want are not expensive they might change the ratio and have 100 of each... the 100 could replace all their existing MiG-29s (about 60 of them I think), and also they could replace the MiG-27s and Jaguars in the light strike mission with their modern sophisticated air to air and air to ground capabilities...

    The MiG-29Ms could replace their MiG-21s as cheap numbers interceptors.... they might decide they are good enough and cheap enough as they are and just order another 200 MiG-29Ms...

    It sounds like the MiG-35 might be what the LCA is supposed to be... cheap to operate but sophisticated modern fighter able to use new weapons of all types.

    I believe Egypt wanted MiG-35s so has MiG-29Ms because the 35 is not ready for export yet... it has the same body so replacing parts could upgrade it to the 35... what they probably did was essentially sell them a MiG-35 but without the parts that were not ready yet like the AESA radar etc.

    Then it would just be a case of putting export cleared parts in their MiG-29Ms to make them MiG-35s anyway.

    Other countries might want cheaper to buy and cheap to operate aircraft, so the MiG-29M is a better choice.

    Russia seems to be buying MiG-35s instead of 29s... hence the delay.

    - The integrated vision system helps the pilot to see in difficult weather conditions.

    Enhanced vision systems to help the pilot see things outside the aircraft... nice.

    ahmedfire likes this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3363
    Points : 3365
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  LMFS Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:20 pm

    More details about the AI elements on the MiG-35:

    MiG-35 will receive an intelligent target recognition system based on neural circuits
    Earlier it was reported that an expert system with elements of artificial intelligence is already being implemented on the MiG-35, which helps the pilot make decisions in various situations

    MOSCOW, April 10. /TASS/. An intelligent target recognition system based on neural circuits is being developed for MiG series aircraft, in particular, for the latest MiG-35 fighter. This was reported to TASS by the press service of the MiG Corporation (part of the United aircraft Corporation Rostec).

    "We are working on an automated taxiing system after landing, as well as on an intelligent target recognition system based on neural circuits, which allows you to identify a target by a partial fragment," the Corporation said.

    Earlier, the press service of the Corporation told TASS that the MiG-35 is already implementing an expert system with elements of artificial intelligence, which helps the pilot make decisions in various situations.

    The latest multi-role fighter of the 4++ generation, the MiG-35, is a further development of the MiG-29K/KUB and MiG-29M/M2 aircraft. The beginning of flight tests and the international presentation of the machine took place in January 2017, in December of the same year, its factory tests were completed. The fighter is designed to operate in areas of high-intensity armed conflicts in conditions of a saturated and layered enemy air defense system.

    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/11113203

    The way MiG is developing the -35 tells me they have concrete, ongoing plans for a 5th gen plane and they are using the existing 4/4.5G plane to implement on it their ideas, very much the same way Sukhoi did on the Su-35 for the PAK-FA. On the one hand, this is somehow an obvious statement, but I think it explains the delay in the MiG-35 much better than other theories and besides seeing such detailed features suggests they are now beyond the phase of vagueness and wishful thinking we have seen for many years. Hope I am not wanting to see more than there is actually there, but things start to make sense for me...

    GarryB, medo, ahmedfire, magnumcromagnon and Finty like this post

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 10488
    Points : 10562
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  PapaDragon Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:12 am

    LMFS wrote:The way MiG is developing the -35 tells me they have concrete, ongoing plans for a 5th gen plane and they are using the existing 4/4.5G plane to implement on it their ideas, very much the same way Sukhoi did on the Su-35 for the PAK-FA. On the one hand, this is somehow an obvious statement, but I think it explains the delay in the MiG-35 much better than other theories and besides seeing such detailed features suggests they are now beyond the phase of vagueness and wishful thinking we have seen for many years. Hope I am not wanting to see more than there is actually there, but things start to make sense for me...

    If MiG wants to develop new budget aircraft they need to use existing components (engines, avionics, cockpit, landing gear, etc...) and simply develop new airframe to wrap it up in

    South Koreans are making new KF-21 which has up to date airframe but weapons are still carried on the wings (4+ gen basically)

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Kf-x_feat_1617955401

    MiG should do the same with added bonus of using space between the engines to add basic internal weapons bay that could be used if needed (wings would still be main weapon mount location) while everything else is taken from MiG-35

    But core thing needed for any new aircraft to work is to keep the cost down which means that airframe should be the only new thing on it otherwise prices go up (and they are already not low) which sends it straight into Su-57 market where it has no chance

    Finty likes this post

    lancelot
    lancelot

    Posts : 163
    Points : 165
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  lancelot Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:47 am

    PapaDragon wrote:...MiG should do the same with added bonus of using space between the engines to add basic internal weapons bay that could be used if needed (wings would still be main weapon mount location) while everything else is taken from MiG-35

    But core thing needed for any new aircraft to work is to keep the cost down which means that airframe should be the only new thing on it otherwise prices go up (and they are already not low) which sends it straight into Su-57 market where it has no chance

    If you go with a small twin engine aircraft which uses existing engines you are going to use the same engines in the MiG-35. Which won't have enough performance for a 5th gen.
    So it makes no sense. Anything other than a single engine aircraft with the Izd 30 for the lightweight fighter project is pointless I think.

    The RD-33MK has a thrust-to-weight ratio of like 8 while the Izd 30 has a thrust-to-weight ratio over 9.
    This would beat GE F414 specifications unlike the RD-33MK.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 10488
    Points : 10562
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  PapaDragon Sun Apr 11, 2021 4:32 am

    lancelot wrote:...If you go with a small twin engine aircraft which uses existing engines you are going to use the same engines in the MiG-35. Which won't have enough performance for a 5th gen....

    No problem, call it 4++ then

    If you need 5th gen buy Su-57, this new MiG should be number filler not top shelf
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3363
    Points : 3365
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  LMFS Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:54 am

    PapaDragon wrote:If MiG wants to develop new budget aircraft they need to use existing components (engines, avionics, cockpit, landing gear, etc...) and simply develop new airframe to wrap it up in

    South Koreans are making new KF-21 which has up to date airframe but weapons are still carried on the wings (4+ gen basically)

    MiG should do the same with added bonus of using space between the engines to add basic internal weapons bay that could be used if needed (wings would still be main weapon mount location) while everything else is taken from MiG-35

    But core thing needed for any new aircraft to work is to keep the cost down which means that airframe should be the only new thing on it otherwise prices go up (and they are already not low) which sends it straight into Su-57 market where it has no chance

    Makes no sense to develop a "new" plane with old systems and engines and then put the weapons in the wings. They already have the MiG-35 for that.

    By that logic, you would never develop a new light plane because it would be expensive, just take a plane from the previous generation. Light fighters use technology of the present generation and are designed to be cheaper to procure and operate than the heavy ones, you are mixing generations and cost / size issues it seems. The new light fighter by MiG (UAC) will be 5G, should be in fact 5.5G by the time of development and the fact that they hint at it being manned or unmanned goes clearly in that direction.

    They can use existing engines (izd. 30, already officially proposed by UEC) and tech from the PAK-FA program, that is how they can save money and time, reheating 4G technology that is old already would be a big loss of time and money.

    If you need 5th gen buy Su-57, this new MiG should be number filler not top shelf

    VKS takes care of this by having new and old planes in operation, sometimes even three generations at the same time, so they phase in new planes at a slow pace, while they modernize older ones to keep them in operation, that achieves the best use of the platforms for the smallest money. But creating a 5G plane that is 4G in reality makes no sense. The current MiG-35 is already the 4.5G step they need to jump to a newer design with reduced risk, the same as Sukhoi did.

    A light plane with one engine, a smaller radar and simplified sensors / avionics together with smaller size and probably less focus in supersonic performance will be cheaper than the Su-57 per definition, more even if it is unmanned since its operation will cost a fraction of that of planes that need to be used to give flight hours to pilots. It will also be less capable of course.

    lancelot wrote:The RD-33MK has a thrust-to-weight ratio of like 8 while the Izd 30 has a thrust-to-weight ratio over 9.

    Actually we know it is higher than 10, probably even by a fair margin. Izd 117 is already almost 11, if the information provided some years ago by Pogosian is accurate.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28731
    Points : 29261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  GarryB Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:05 am

    If MiG wants to develop new budget aircraft they need to use existing components (engines, avionics, cockpit, landing gear, etc...) and simply develop new airframe to wrap it up in

    South Koreans are making new KF-21 which has up to date airframe but weapons are still carried on the wings (4+ gen basically)

    If that is stealthy then it will be expensive, because stealth is not cheap... except external weapons carriage is not stealthy so apart from basic shape stealth it is likely not stealthy at all... which means they already have such a plane... the MiG-35.

    Cheap to buy and cheap to operate and capable, but not particularly stealthy.

    MiG should do the same with added bonus of using space between the engines to add basic internal weapons bay that could be used if needed (wings would still be main weapon mount location) while everything else is taken from MiG-35

    Or just leave it as it is because any internal weapon bay between the engines would not hold more than two missiles... making it pretty useless if to be stealthy that was all it could carry... and considering how little extra stealthy it would make the aircraft.

    But core thing needed for any new aircraft to work is to keep the cost down which means that airframe should be the only new thing on it otherwise prices go up (and they are already not low) which sends it straight into Su-57 market where it has no chance

    I would think they will be doing what Sukhoi did... the new stuff they are developing for the LMFS can be put in the MiG-35 first for testing and to improve the performance of aircraft in service, because getting it right is going to take time.

    At the end of the day they will have a stealthy fighter with a lot of commonality with the MiG-35 and MiG-29M and MiG-29KR, so customers that are buying these existing types might want to use the new stealth fighter as their eventually goal fighter while retaining the older 4th gen fighters for roles that do not require stealth... which would be most of them.

    If you go with a small twin engine aircraft which uses existing engines you are going to use the same engines in the MiG-35. Which won't have enough performance for a 5th gen.

    You do understand the Klimov is an engine company that makes jet engines and they are working on new improved model engines just like Saturn is with Sukhoi.

    There is a 12 ton thrust RD-45 being worked on AFAIK for the future light prospective light multirole fighter.

    Engine thrust is just one component... the F-35 has plenty of thrust but is still considered a bit of a dog in the air.

    Having two engines spaced apart means thrust vectored engine thrust gives astounding manouver performance... an ability to roll that a single engined aircraft cannot match even with the same engine.

    So it makes no sense. Anything other than a single engine aircraft with the Izd 30 for the lightweight fighter project is pointless I think.

    The F-35 and F-16 are not cheap fighters by any stretch of the imagination. The MiG-35 would be much cheaper to buy and operate and a twin engined stealthy version of it would also be cheaper.

    A stealthy MiG-35 does not need to be a super fighter... they will have Su-35s and Su-57s and Su-30s upgraded to Su-35 level... it just needs to be more stealthy than 4th gen fighters and cheap enough to buy in useful numbers... which I don't think will be a problem.

    The RD-33MK has a thrust-to-weight ratio of like 8 while the Izd 30 has a thrust-to-weight ratio over 9.

    The LMFS is a light stealth fighter intended to be operated in an air force with Su-57s... the LMFS does not even need to be faster than Mach 2, and it certainly does not need a huge flight range of heavy payload capacity.

    Trying to make it a mini Su-57 was the mistake the US made with the F-35... trying to make it better than an F-22 and failing terribly.

    On the positive side the Russians aren't trying to make their planes cancel proof by congress, so all the bullshit about building it in depressed areas where congressmen with control of pentagon purse strings wont block it, and will keep it in production long after it makes sense to stop... it worked with the C-17 and it worked with the F-35.... and both turned out to be eye wateringly expensive bits of crap.

    Fortunately MiG know what they are doing.

    This would beat GE F414 specifications unlike the RD-33MK.

    Don't be silly... for a brand new design they are going with tried and trusted... a Rolls Royce Nene knockoff....

    Makes no sense to develop a "new" plane with old systems and engines and then put the weapons in the wings. They already have the MiG-35 for that.

    Correct... and as they develop new technology for the LMFS they can put it in MiG-35 upgrades to get real world testing done and new stuff into service faster...

    They can use existing engines (izd. 30, already officially proposed by UEC) and tech from the PAK-FA program, that is how they can save money and time, reheating 4G technology that is old already would be a big loss of time and money.

    A scaled down single engined Su-57 makes little sense. They could just use Su-57s with their fuel tanks half full for such missions and save on setting up production and all the design BS.

    A genuine lighter fighter is what they need and is best represented by the MiG-35.

    A stealthy MiG-35 with the airframe designed from the ground up as stealthy is what they need.

    Putting Su-57s bits in it will make it not work... you can't fit Flanker bits like radar and engines in a MiG-29 and expect it to be a light fighter... you will end up having to make it bigger which means you might as well just make more Flankers and accept the higher operating costs is going to mean a lot fewer aircraft which means gaps in your air defence.

    But creating a 5G plane that is 4G in reality makes no sense.

    I agree... that is what that KF-21 seems to be...

    If you need 5th gen buy Su-57, this new MiG should be number filler not top shelf

    The biggest mistake making a light fighter is ending up with something trying to be a bigger fighter and being more expensive than it needs to be because of that.

    Having one engine does not effect operational costs... the F-35/F-16/MiG-35 proves that...

    You can't expect an LMFS to fly at mach 2.5 and have a 3,000km flight radius, and have one engine and do everything bigger aircraft do and still be cheap.

    Two engines, mach 2 top speed limit, mach 1.5 supercruise perhaps, 5 ton payload capacity, 1,500km flight radius.... most of the time its armament will be air to air missiles and dumb iron bombs or glide bombs to penetrate enemy air defences... it will be a frontal aviation equivalent of the MiG-27 and MiG-23.

    It will operate with MiG-35s in the Russian AF in numbers and will likely have a naval version.

    Sponsored content

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:42 am