MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

Agreed... to take down the IADS network of a third world country or HATO country a stealth aircraft is useful and effective, but as the conflict in the Ukraine has shown once even an ancient Soviet air defence system has been taken down individual enemy air defence systems continue to be a problem so non stealthy aircraft cannot operate freely and openly with no risk of being shot down... so a role continues for stealthy aircraft even after day one or week one because air defence systems will continue to be a threat...

But there is more than that... fighting the west and HATO countries they have so few SAMs and air defence systems because they expect to have air control their ability to deal with stealthy targets is weak as shown by their pathetic showings in Saudi Arabia and even the Ukraine conflict where stealthy drones and cruise missiles wander through their airspace unnoticed.

Russia has been contemplating stealth threats for the last 30 years and are constantly redefining and upgrading all of their SAM systems to deal with stealthy threats... Su-57 and Su-35 aircraft have nose mounted radar but also wing mounted radar and IRST in combined systems to detect stealthy targets... the western use of drones against Russians in Syria and now Ukraine has meant they are developing lots of non radar methods of tracking and detecting targets... Penecilin springs to mind but NEBO and new versions of TOR and Pantsir leap to mind that can detect and track and destroy drone targets and as such would be ideal for detecting also stealthy aircraft too. Even ground based laser systems intended to defeat drones would also be applicable to stealthy aircraft too.

The west has aircraft for attack and defence but Russia has Army defence as well as Army attack ( Iskander and Smerch and likely new IRBMs and cruise missiles on the way) but also Air Force Attack (various new standoff missiles and glide bombs) as well as Air Force defence as well... which includes a whole separate range of SAMs and aircraft in a layered defence that cooperates and coordinates its defence and is now getting a new layer of drones for both attack and defence... at a time when HATO will be spending billions just to up their production rate of artillery shells and gun barrels.

It is not just about performance but also numbers... an aircraft is a radar and IRST linked in to a network... it carries a gun but also both attack and defence missiles.... the more planes you have the better the defence and attack... if you only have and can only afford 76 Su-57s then that is OK but across an entire country that wont be enough and expanding that performance by building more Su-57s is going to be expensive.

For the price of another 76 Su-57s you could probably build and operate 200 plus MiG-35s that will cover rather more airspace and do it at a price that is cheaper than operating 76 Su-57s because their operational costs will be cheaper... but it could use the same sized radar you could fit into an Su-57 if that is so damn important, and it will be using the same missiles from similar altitudes and similar speeds achieving similar performance on target.

The F-35 was too ambitious which made it expensive which means to operate it you wont be able to use the same number of F-35s as you had F-16s... the operational costs of the F-35 are enormous... British carrier based models reportedly cost 90K pounds per flight hour... that is not sustainable and the only feature it has over something like a Rafale which is also expensive but at least it works is its stealth and the Russians have equipment in place to nullify stealth as a decisive feature.

Everyone uses net centric technology these days... a fighter not using its radar in combat is going to be normal because other platforms can pass enemy target data to them and they can engage without revealing their own position by using their own radar... they can use IRST passively to share target data with other platforms or could scan with its radar to distract a target that has been detected by another platform or its radar could be in listening mode while other radars on the ground or in the air scan looking for radar signals being scattered by stealth technology in every direction except the direction the signal came from, so aircraft scanning and other aircraft just listening could act like a bistatic radar array to detect all manner of stealthy platforms easily enough and collate detected radar signals to get good locations on various targets rendering all that money spent on stealth to buy and to operate these super expensive aircraft null.

The future might be a bundle of 20 or 30 mini self defence missiles to shoot down incoming threats... in a truck with 500 missiles to defend from artillery and drones and for ships with thousands of missiles to defend against anti ship missiles and drones and artillery and for fighters and bombers to defeat SAMs and AAMs and drones...

The more HATO countries that buy the F-35 the better for Russia and ultimately for the destruction of HATO.

The MiG-35 and Checkmate are what F-35 was supposed to be... cheap but capable numbers planes that affordably fill the gaps left between the big expensive stuff that clears the enemy skies of capable aircraft and decent air defence systems.

Dunno how the author comes to the conclusion that the Su-75 is likely a dead project

IMO interest in it will only increase. This conflict has drawn attention to the advantages of low-observability, and so who wouldn't want a cheap stealth multirole aircraft in the coming years? Domestic and international customers both.

Again, I do not understand why they concentrate so much on the characteristics of the Zhuk-A/AM radar.
It is highly possible that a new radar or an even better version will be developed by NIIR Phazotron.

A western propaganda strategy... the MiG-35 is rubbish because it has a poor radar... the fact that it wont be engaging targets 400km away or the fact that if it did then other platforms can provide the needed target information and it can carry the same missile... but more importantly the MiG-35 can fly higher and faster if not further than the Checkmate makes it moot. Against an enemy Inflight refuelling tanker supporting enemy air operations in a region or an AWACS or AEW platform managing the fight for the enemy side either could easily be engaged at max range because they can't dodge missiles and are easy to detect... in the case of the latter by their radar emissions.

Worst case scenario MiG could buy the radar going in to the Su-75 to improve commonality... radar companies are radar companies and although they do cooperate with aircraft companies, they are not joined at the hip.

We are hearing about the Suhoi light fifth gen fighter but we hear nothing about the MiG one.

Does the Russian AF expect their light cheap fighter to be doing the work of the MiG-31 and shooting down enemy aircraft at 400km, then why are they wasting time and money on the MiG-41?

Possibly the two firms could also cooperate to improve the MiG radar.

Both firms had two radar sets... one for 4++ aircraft and one for 5th gen aircraft... MiG-35 is MiGs 4++ gen aircraft and this magazine is comparing Sukhois 5th gen light fighter with MiGs 4++ gen fighter, which is not very sensible or fair.

We don't know the performance of the MiG 5th gen fighter radar and it wont get funding if they don't make any MiG-35s.

I rather suspect with their air power focus and total lack of decent ground based air defences that western countries wont be that much better equipped to defend themselves than a third world country... especially a few weeks into the conflict, and while having stealthy aircraft will be an advantage and therefore a sensible measure for Russia, I think having non stealthy aircraft also makes sense as well for domestic use and for export to countries that don't need stealthy fighters.

If Russia operated like western countries then going for an all Su-57/S-70 and Su-75 fleet makes sense with the former being the F-22 and the latter being what the F-35 was supposed to be... maybe 300 Su-57s, another 500 S-70s, and maybe 800 Su-75s because they are cheap to buy and to operate and wont break the bank.... obviously not all at once... but over the next 20 years or so gradually replacing older types.

But they don't so spending that much on new planes like that does not really make sense... how long is stealth going to be effective?

And when it is not then 4++ gen aircraft which can carry more and bulkier external weapon loads and are much cheaper to buy and operate start to make sense again.

Still, I doubt that the Su-75 is doomed. It has a lot of export potential and maybe later it can be also bought by the Russian air force.

Even if the MiG option 5th gen fighter is better, it wont be for sale and in the export market the Su-75 is a MiG-21 of its time that is better than the F-16 of this time (F-35) for a fraction of the purchase price and a tiny fraction of the operating costs.

Improved international relations with the rest of the world will likely see the Checkmate the dominant fighter in Africa and Asia and Central and South America.... and HATO will be scared because they wont be able to afford to fix the F-35 to get it working right let alone operate it in useful numbers to make a difference.

The more F-35s HATO operates the closer they are to failure as more money shifts from western banks into American MIC companies on to the richest 1% bank accounts in the US... and they wont share... I bet you in 15 years time half of them might run to Russia because collapsing western economies are demanding they pay a fair share of tax in their income from their enormous wealth and Russias 15% flat tax is appealing to them... hahahaha... how funny would that be?

Perhaps a Russian director should make a movie about it... black comedy.

Dunno how the author comes to the conclusion that the Su-75 is likely a dead project

It must be a dead project because it is Russian and it is not funded or supported by the Russian Military... a private project... based on a solid design and model I would wager, but not flying yet either.

Maybe they believe that Russia cannot afford to buy both models.

A fair assumption considering Putin is on the way out and the economy is in tatters... all that is left is to release Navalny and make him Tsar and then he can beg the west for forgiveness and offer full ownership of energy resources in Russia as an apology...  

I believe instead that it will be useful to have light and and heavy fighters, and each of the two categories will be covered by a stealth (Su-57 and F-75) and non stealth aircrafts (Su-35 and Mig-35).

I agree, but information about the Su-75 is premature for a project for the Russian AF which makes me think MiG is working on something even cheaper for the job that wont be for export any time soon, and if Su-75 is as good as they say then it would make sense to export it because for richer countries like India they can do a twofor... where they sell Su-57s and the related Su-75s with shared components and equipment as a bundle where the Su-57s are the top of the line fight everything and anything, while the Su-75 is the medium companion that is the numbers platform to replace everything else... they might want to include the S-70 in there as well or keep that for themselves too.

Especially if the Su-75 will find an export customer. Since most costs associated with the start of manufacturing will be covered by the export contracts.

There will be export customers who want ready made aircraft and there will be export customers that want to build them for themselves and the costs will reflect that but the first ten countries that sign up for orders will justify production in Russia which will allow those factories to make at least the first dozen aircraft in every order which will be enough to pay for the production facilities in Russia and then any extra factories will be to meet high demand and therefore be paid for by the high demand, or they will be in the countries of the customers in which case that will be part of the package cost.

Good points about the carrier version of the MiG-35, but equally MiG are working on a twin jet carrier based light aircraft which could also be adapted to ground based if the Russian AF wants a twin engined option.... both will be designed for low operational costs ( Twin and single engined models) so they have covered both bases this time around...

Personally I prefer twin engined designs as it gives more internal volume and space for growth and development and with thrust vectoring engines should allow astounding manouver performance and also body lift to overcome the extra drag the larger frontal area creates.

They say you don't need two engines because new engines are more reliable... well I would counter that new more reliable engines probably need rather less maintenance so having two is probably not actually that much of a burden anyway, but the safety aspects remain.

Commonality is a good thing, but diversity is good too... if you only buy Sukhoi planes then only Sukhoi gets the money and only Sukhoi gets the experience of designing and building and making planes and soon only Sukhoi can make planes and those resources for Yak and MiG and others are left bone idle while Sukhoi factories are getting burned out and not keeping up with demand.

A short while back they said Sukhoi and MiG merged anyway.... so if MiG had designs and Sukhoi had designs you would not want to bin any of them because they wont be the same and will have different strengths and weaknesses so you couldn't just say this was best or this is good and this is not, because for different customers with different needs and wants different options are a good thing.

@GarryB


Yep there were rumors 3 years abo or so that MiG worked on light fighter, which lookes similar to Yak-201 why not VSTPO: M<iG

At MAKS 2021 they showed this:



Left to right a single engined light fighter, a wingman type drone, and a twin engined carrier based fighter.



Complaints it looks like a LIFT are amusing because it is supposed to be low cost... hense the single engine, so making an actual stealth aircraft from scratch in the size and weight class of a LIFT makes sense in terms of keeping the costs and prices down... the core problems of going the other way is that an existing LIFT cannot be made stealthy otherwise there would be no Su-57... they could just make the Su-35 into a stealthy fighter.

Things like proper stealth shaping and internal weapons carriage cannot be added on to an existing type and so it needs to be designed from the start with stealth in mind.

What is funny is that those that supported the Checkmate because it was single engined don't also support the even smaller MiG which is also single engined... making it sound a bit like the whole single engined thing was actually bullshit anyway and they were just anti MiG fanboys.

If you look at the top image you will see how bulky the single engined fighters body has to be for internal weapons bay space which means the main advantage of a single engined fighter... that of lower drag and smaller frontal cross section is bollocks as well.

That's something they are not developing and it looks like a very light fighter/trainer jet. But that would still be better than mig 35 and it can launch the same missiles as su-57.

They showed a model but didn't try to get investors... suggests to me that things are going the way they said they would... when serial production of the Su-57 started the LMFS programme would be restarted with proper funding.

Interestingly they could make a version of it specifically for the LIFT role too.

I am sure the Checkmate will be a very capable and successful aircraft in its own right, but I suspect this light MiG might be successful too... it would be a good Tegas replacement for India for instance and for Iran it would be a good replacement for their F-5 knockoffs and for China it could replace the JF-17 with real stealth plus low operational costs too.

Next we will be hearing they have reduced the price of the F-35 to a mere 50 million... by not including the wings or the engine...

The Mig-35 could be turned into a UCAV in case the Su-75 is a failure.

Since it's a mig design it would use a rd33 derivated engine like jf-17 which proved to be quite cheap to buy and maintain.

Well even if they reduce the price further (for the F35), the operating costs are soaring all the time.

If Russia hits the west with sanctions on Aluminium and Titanium and only sells to non western countries then the price will go up even further for all aircraft production in the west, but as the costs of the F-35 do go up and now they have cancelled the automated supply system that was going save them lots of money by unifying and simplifying spare parts and support for all users, it is not likely to get any cheaper to support these aircraft either.

As inflation and other costs and other priorities like ammo reserves and new armour etc start to bite defence budgets are countries going to be able to continue to get over covid and now fund the war in Ukraine and buy new expensive planes and things to replace the stuff they gave to Kiev.

Likely they will reduce order numbers which will just make the aircraft they do get more expensive to buy and to operate because their planning will be based on the numbers of planes being operated to make sure they have enough spare parts in production.

Ironic that spare parts for Checkmate might be emailed to a factory in your own country and printed out for use on the Russian printer you bought as part of the deal.

The Mig-35 could be turned into a UCAV in case the Su-75 is a failure.

If Su-75 is a failure wouldn't they want MiG-35s to use instead of Su-75s?

I would suggest a modern UCAV would be better based on a wingman type drone which they have already shown a model of, plus Sukhoi has its S-70 drone as well... both of which would likely be better to use as UCAVs.

Having a cheaper lighter aircraft for jobs that don't require a super plane ( and by that I mean a bigger heavier aircraft because no aircraft is immune to being shot down) will always make sense... as bad as the F-35 is... it is still cheaper than the 250 million per aircraft F-22.

Given the choice between 20 Su-35s defending an area of airspace or 80 MiG-35s... most of the time the MiGs will actually give you better coverage because they can be in 20 places at once while the Flankers can only be in 5 places (with four aircraft working together as a team).

More importantly 80 radar can cover more airspace than 20 radar can, and 80 IRSTs... well you probably get it now.

The main difference will be that the Flanker has wing mounted L band radar, which is a serious advantage against stealthy targets, but then a group of MiGs could operate with individual Su-30s that will have wing mounted L band radar that can find the targets and direct the smaller MiGs to find and engage them.

Since it's a mig design it would use a rd33 derivated engine like jf-17 which proved to be quite cheap to buy and maintain.

Just like the engine in the F-5 was cheap to buy and maintain and actually made the twin engined F-5 cheaper to buy and to operate than the single engined F-16, though of course all of the F-16s systems were also more expensive and capable too.

America could have transferred sophisticated stuff from the F-16 to the F-5 over time to improve its performance to a fraction of that of the F-16 without making it expensive and could have operated their own F-5s... they were already operating them as T-38 LIFTs anyway.

But cheap light fighters don't make big profits like expensive stealthy fighters do.

the other plane in Garry's pick at the far right/back is, most likely, the MiG PD jet. The replacement for MiG-31. And that is a very important jet. Possibly more important than Su-57 in itself.

Just like the engine in the F-5 was cheap to buy and maintain and actually made the twin engined F-5 cheaper to buy and to operate than the single engined F-16, though of course all of the F-16s systems were also more expensive and capable too.

Well the f16 engine is a huge one. F-5 are tinny.

Now we are talking about taking of mig-29 engine, not recreating a new big one.

the other plane in Garry's pick at the far right/back is, most likely, the MiG PD jet. The replacement for MiG-31. And that is a very important jet. Possibly more important than Su-57 in itself.

At the airshow itself it was described as being a twin engined carrier based new light fighter intended to replace the MIG-29K, which perhaps suggests it could be used as a land based replacement or stealth suppliment for the MIG-35... basically a twin engined competitor for the Su-75 if they want two engines again...

Well the f16 engine is a huge one. F-5 are tinny.

When you only have one engine it has to be a big one.

Now we are talking about taking of mig-29 engine, not recreating a new big one.

There was talk of Klimov doing to the RD-33 what Saturn did to the Al-31 and taking a 9 ton thrust engine and turning it into a 12 ton thrust engine.

I seem to remember Piotr Butowski mentioning a name like RD-45 or something in a magazine in the 1990s for a MiG-37 which at the time was basically going to be what the MiG-35 is now, except enlarged and with canards... because obviously at the time it was believed in the west that the best way to fix the MiG-29 was to make it bigger like an Su-27... which ignores the entire purpose of the lighter smaller aircraft.

This new more powerful engine was designed to be used in a pair rather than as a single engine so essentially a 24 ton thrust for the "light" twin jet which could have the same MTOW as the MiG-35 and still be technically able to take off vertically...

Of course the Chinese light fighter using the engine just uses one so there is clearly confidence in its reliability to just fit one engine.

I would suspect the engine would be used in both the single engined 5th gen light fighter... making MTOW about 10-12 tons, which is pretty good for a stealth fighter with internal weapons, while the twin engined carrier fighter would be similar in weight to the MiG-29K but with the equivalent of almost another engine.

When you only have one engine it has to be a big one.

Or create a smaller plane. Exactly what Pakistan did with jf-17.

A modern jf-17 with good avionics and good long range pl-15 missiles can hold its own against any f-16, f-15 or mig-35, su-35.

Add some good stealth and weapon bay and you can fight any f-35 or su-57 with good chances of winning even if you have 1 rd-33 engine.

Edit: I must admit that there is no space for weapon bays in small aircraft. Thus why su-75 still is pretty large (but not necessarly big!!). This mig design has no scale. It's either bigger than what they show or the weapon bays are very small. If it is small and has standard weapon bays then its range is very small and not worth buying it.

Hmm, as a carrier fighter it sure looks like the J-20/MiG 1.42 in a sense which is ideal design for interceptor.

But if they tout it for carrier base jet, then that is very interesting indeed.  I wonder how big it would be?

The JF-17 used initially a RD-93 engine which is an up powered RD-33. I imagine they could easily modernize that one even further for something of a single engine fighter of 5th/6th gen.

the other plane in Garry's pick at the far right/back is, most likely, the MiG PD jet. The replacement for MiG-31. And that is a very important jet. Possibly more important than Su-57 in itself.

Paralay was talking the other day, that they could maybe make a Mig 41 out of the su 57.

According to some reports, the Su-57 (at least with the engine of the second stage) is capable of speeds of about 2.8-3M. It also carries a long-range explosive missile. Therefore, it is the functions of the MiG-31 as an interceptor that it may well perform.

In essence, the Su-57 could indeed act as an interceptor. But its size limitations may also stand in the way for Khinzal missile launches. At that, its radar size too. If, instead the radar is upgraded to use GaN modules or more advanced GaAS modules of the 20-30W line, and new engines and generator can provide enough electricity for the radar, then it can extend the range.

I was more or less thinking that if MiG-41 is about same size as MiG-31, then it could carry a heavier radar and other weaponry.

MoD will make the right decision though.

@Sepheronx

as carrier fighter Su-57 or "big MiG" i is imho unlikely. Major task fo Russian navy aviation is navy groupings defense, Killing western missile carriers i.e F-35 or similar. Not strike functions (Calibr, Onyx or Zircon will do this). If there s a need im sure GZUR hypersonic missile can be carried.

Why smallr? because you can pack more of them inside carrier..


@Backman/Sepheronx

Kinzhal is unlikely will be used by navy fighters. It is a stopgap till specialized air launched hypersonic missiles will enter serial production. They will be lighter an already designed with Su-57 in mind. MiG-41 flying really high say 30+km surely can throw aeroballistic missile on rather long.

Sense and Indian procurement decisions. 

Some idiot declassified the Mig-29 and its weapon systems on an open gaming forum.
What the hell happened?
What was leaked?