MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

The Chinese are likely way more advanced in terms of basic radar technology than either Russia or even the US at this point.

AESA radar is about production capacity which means the US and China have advantages, but the next step in radar technology means new technology so making old technology is no advantage... in fact investing lots of money and energy into producing old AESA technology is more of a hindrance to making the new technologies.

Using AESA radar on all their new fighters makes western fighters expensive... not spending that money on AESAs and investing in next gen photonic radars might make Russian fighters cheaper and also better by a generation.

The F-15 was a twin engine all-weather air superiority (more expensive) development, whilst the F-16 was initially a single engine air superiority fighter for daytime close combat (dog fighter).

The F-15 was going to be the best plane the US could manage, with the best radar and the best engines they could manage placed in an aircraft based on the shell, the planform of the best fighter design they had seen.... the MiG-25, so they spend everything they had to make it the best fighter they could possibly make at the time based on the Soviet fighter they feared and just relied on the superiority of their technology to end up with a better aircraft... what they didn't know was that the MiG-25 was an interceptor optimised for speed which led to them getting a good fighter out of it... but it was always going to be too expensive to be a standard all round fighter so they needed a light cheap day fighter they hoped could be cheap because it was a simple aircraft with a big engine and all digital systems they wanted to make plug and play... the original F-16 was a 9g fighter that was supposed to have a great multirole radar for air and ground targets and to carry dumb bombs and Sidewinder missiles... it was created at a time when AMRAAM was just an idea and F-15s used Sparrows... the F16 was going to be a day fighter that was cheap and sophisticated but not complex or expensive.

That didn't last long.

The F-5 was the cheap export fighter for countries that didn't need anything better, but for the US the F-16 became the light fighter and bomb truck swing fighter.

The Mig-29/35 is not competitive. Why? It is simply not bought and therefore not built. The market rules.

If market rules meant anything at all then the F-35 would not exist and most western aircraft simply would not be sold either.

The MiG-35 is ideal for any country that does not need anything better... Su-35 performance over shorter ranges at a reasonable price and low operating costs.

Most countries buying Flankers would actually be much better off with Fulcrums instead... they think they can save money by buying fewer Flankers and end up with less coverage and higher operating costs.

Malaysia bought old model MiG-29s and complained that they cost too much to operate, well you could get SMT upgrades and they would be cheaper than their Su-30s but they want to keep their Su-30s so they don't upgrade their planes to take advantage of the improved performance and lower costs.

The Germans were the same... they could have upgraded their old model MiG-29s to SMT standard but then why would they buy expensive Typhoons when MiG-29SMTs would do a better job and be cheaper to operate... instead they retired their MiG-29s and used F-4s.

If they want to cut their own noses to spite their own faces then let them but don't pretend it is the fault of MiG that these countries are stupid.

Even India is not buying more Mig-29Ks for its new launchers.

And after they have spent billions on Rafales or Hornets they might eventually realise their mistake but considering their history of buying weapons I would say they should be looked at as an education as to how not to spend money, or better an example of how corruption works and how western MIC companies promoted corruption in other countries and domestically.

Mig can produce a very expensive and therefore very limited in number Mig-41

Actually I think they might produce rather more MiG-41s than they produce Su-57s for domestic use... they will probably want 300 plus replacements for MiG-31s.

It is better to upgrade the Mig-31 with another, a BM2 package. The integration of PESA in the wings. on the hull, etc. for TOR would have to be checked in my view as self-protection.

They wont keep MiG-31s like they wont keep MiG-25s, the new aircraft are a generation better and will have capabilities that make the older aircraft obsolete very quickly.

What MIG should do is create a FC-1/JF-17 competitor with the new RD-93.

The MiG-35 is already better than these aircraft you mention and the RD-93 is the same engine the MiG-35 uses... they just shifted the gearbox to the bottom for maintenance reasons.

Creating a brand new 4th gen fighter with just one engine would be bloody stupid... if no one wants a MIG-35 why would they want a single engined version of it?

The cost of the engine is only a tiny fraction of the maintenance on a MiG-35 so removing one engine DOES NOT HALVE ITS MAINTENANCE COSTS.

This aircraft could take over the role of the Su-25 or just serve as a small fighter for carriers. It should only cost 40% of a possible Su-75.

The Su-25 on aircraft carriers is for pilot training... practising landings and taking off. It has never had any role other than that... the Su-25 on the Kuznetsov is unarmed... it does not even have a gun.

The MiG-29K already replaces the Su-25 because it has a two seat version that is fully operational and combat capable with IRST and radar and weapon pylons on which weapons can be carried.

In any case, Mig should do something to give his own supply chain and research teams a vision, a kick again. Otherwise, Mig will soon be history. And Moscow, just as before, should encourage competition!

MiG is a division of OAK/UAC and has the same management team as Sukhoi has right now.

Right now they will likely be working on their new single engined 5th gen fighter that will now be funded by the Russian AF.

I'm curious on the configuration of these?

Do they have the AESA Zhuk AM radar?

The light fighter heavy fighter arrangement in Russia has never had commonality... different engines, different radar, different IRST etc etc.

There will be no commonality between MiG-41 and Su-57 just like there is no commonality between Su-35 and MiG-31.

Commonality is nice but has to be of benefit.

I'm curious on the configuration of these?

Do they have the AESA Zhuk AM radar?

AESA radars are a production thing... they can make one or two easily but you need to get them into serial production where you are making hundreds of thousands or even millions of elements for them to become affordable.

It sounds unreasonable but actually when you are making AESA radars for your armoured vehicles and for SAM vehicles and drones and air to air missiles as well as massive arrays on ships then you already have production well under way.

The more customers buying the radars the cheaper they will become.

If they have not got them operational now they will be very close and really down to the customers being prepared to spend the money to get them made.

A bit like the MiG-29K for the Russian Navy... when the Indian Navy paid for setting up production and tooling the Russian Navy was able to get its own planes made on the cheap.

If India wants to go for Rafales then good luck to them because that means their carriers will need catapults, which adds complexity and cost... but also capability.

Perhaps for the 10 billion they will spend to get 40 Rafales they could spend that on a joint venture with a Russian radar making company to develop their own AESA radar in the form they want and put them in their MiG-29s.

The mig-35 is over. They must move forward with the su-75 and the pak-dp.

That is what the Russian military have to decide... are 4th gen fighters obsolete and not worth buying any more... because that effects the Su-35 and Su-30 and Su-34 too remember... the MiG-35 is not something you buy because of its amazing outstanding capability... you buy it because it can do most things the Su-35 can do but much cheaper and over a shorter distance... it is a numbers plane.

There is a single engined MiG 5th gen light fighter on the way and the Su-75 has been mentioned too but the question is... does stealth actually matter that much and can they make a stealthy fighter as cheap to operate as they have made a 4th gen fighter (MiG-35)?

I think MiG-35 should had been introduced a decade earlier

Two decades... but it was always the neglected black sheep. Obviously the MiG-35 that entered service one or two decades ago would not have been as good as it is now, but the current model would be an upgrade to existing aircraft.

As Lancelot points out... a net centric system is only as good as the information it can collect and when you have a few hundred big heavy fighters then you have to rely on recon units. Once new generation and next generation units get into service like the T-90AM and T-14 and the MiG-35 and Su-35 then they will start collecting data in real time on the battlefield and being able to share that in real time with each other means ground troops will see the air picture provided by overhead aircraft like MiG-35s but also Mi-28NMs and Ka-52Ms and will be able to pick out targets for the aircraft to engage.... more dangerous areas you can send drones or use real time satellite feeds.

Even a sniper deep behind enemy lines with a smart scope can take images and videos of targets and using GLONASS and a laser range finder mark them on a map and upload it to HQ and platforms in the area... the point is having a small few heavy expensive fighters is not as effective as having lots of smaller cheaper aircraft around... the extra production of AESA radar elements would actually make them more affordable too.

As production of AESA elements goes up the dud rate goes down and price drops dramatically.

Also because a lot of innovation happens on the factory floor the size and weight goes down with the cost and the performance goes up and production rate increases.

I was going to say a MiG-35 can't replace an Su-25, just the same as the F-16 was no replacement for the A-10... they just can't take the punishment.

The idea of a CAS aircraft is a robust aircraft that can take damage and get home and be patched up and put back into the game very quickly... the MiG-35/F-16?Su-34 is not that type of aircraft.

They should have realised in the first Chechen war when Su-27s got shot down trying to perform CAS missions that big fast fighters are no good flying low and slow actually looking for targets.

Flying low and very fast and they are excellent but they will miss all the targets they are supposed to be hitting.

With AESA radar creating a high resolution map of the ground that could be passed to helicopters and ground forces as well as thermal optics that could be sent in real time for ground forces and other platforms to find and highlight targets that can be engaged with standoff weapons like glide bombs and laser guided rockets and missiles like LMUR or Hermes.

The Su-25 is all about flying in slow and low and finding its target and launching a volley of rockets or a couple of 250kgs bombs or bursts of 30mm cannon fire on... no fast jet can do that because they rely on their speed for survival... the enemy are surprised and don't have time to open fire before they have gone past... but flying slow to see the targets to get time to fire at them means some targets will fire at them so they need armour even if just for small arms fire.

I would say the Su-25 has replaced the air to ground of the old Frontal Aviation which was MiG-27s and Su-17s and MiG-21s when the skies were cleared of enemy fighters. The Su-25 was much better than those aircraft and therefore more successful because it was slow enough to find and hit targets but too fast and armoured enough survive the return fire.

I suspect new tech with long range IR sensors for their helicopters and of course MMW radar too that the next step for the Su-25 would be an Su-25TM with radar and all weather optics and auto tracking target system that automates finding and hitting targets.

Well I think Su-34 is too big a target, but the MiG-35 with an AESA radar and IR optics could fly back from the front line and scan the battlefield and provide front line units and behind the lines special forces units an air picture in high resolution radar and also IIR of the ground around them, showing moving targets and they could highlight targets they want you to engage, which you do from stand off distances with long range missiles and glide bombs etc etc.

MiG-35s would probably be better equipped to take out enemy air defence systems as they pop up,

There was a project called MiG-101 that was supposed to be a CAS... it looked a bit like a Bronco and had two turboprop engines (they were helicopter engines so they were the same as the helicopters at nearby bases), They were designed to be simple and cheap and resistant to damage... straight thick wings, cheap and easy to replace... they even made a family of light aircraft for recon and ambulance as well as attack etc....



The question is has technology and communication between aircraft and ground forces gotten to the point where a more sophisticated aircraft can support ground forces from more standoff distances using glide bombs and various missiles and laser guided rockets... because when there is a vehicle or bunker in your way an S-25L with a 150kg HE payload will fix it... the speed of the rocket from an Su-25 or MiG-35 is not much different... both would be launched from standoff in a lofted trajectory...

Perhaps it is getting too dangerous for anything to get that close any more and standoff aircraft attacks with better sensors and communications might be needed... remember if it is too dangerous for aircraft the drones are going to suffer loss rates too.

That turkish drone was rendered useless simply because of a decent air defence, which is not to say drones are no good, but while they have their uses they also have serious limitations which means you don't want to retire all your Su-25s and use drones instead.