MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

I have to agree - the Mig-35 or whatever fighter proposal just won't do. There is a good reason why they have an armoured bath tub installed in the Su-25.

That was the argument that got A-10s and Su-25s into service and you can't refute their results because faster aircraft like the MiG-23 and MiG-27 and also the MiG-29 that should have replaced both in the fighter fighterbomber role were too fast and too fragile to get right up on the front line to find targets and hit them.

But if we look at the evolution of the Su-25 at the T and TM models it appears the evolution is to get more sophisticated aircraft still using mostly dumb or cheap smart weapons with sensors that allow the detection of targets from further away... which is the sort of thing you would do in a MiG-35 or dare I say it the M-55?

Perhaps the future of CAS will involve high flying observation platforms finding targets and passing target data to suicide drones or more sophisticated standoff platforms like the MiG-35 or A-16 (ground attack modification of the F-16) to hit from standoff distances perhaps with lofted unguided rockets with laser homing seekers, or glide bombs or missiles, or conventional guided weapons like Grom and Grom 2 and of course Kh-38 et al.

Perhaps a smaller missile like Hermes to hit critical individual armoured vehicles like tanks with mine rollers or air defence vehicles or mine clearing vehicles or artillery vehicles etc etc, or the odd HQ with a 250kg warhead of a Kh-38 missile...

I think better communications with the ground forces and sharing battle field pictures so the fighter aircraft sees friendly forces and he can scan with his AESA radar and IIR sensors the local landscape in real time with friendly forces highlighted so the ground  forces can take a look together with the view provided by their drones and recon equipment and any attack helicopters in the area, and the people on the ground could choose the targets the aircraft need to hit, while of course the aircraft will also prioritise any air defence system or anyone that is keen to shoot at aircraft too...

Will that work or is it simply too overwhelming in terms of communications and enemy targets... I personally think it is really a job for a two seater aircraft with a pilot looking for threats and keeping over safe territory, while the guy in the back is communicating with everyone else and giving his pilot some directions to face to scan with radar or EO sensors it might be carrying, and communicating with ground forces and of course launching attacks on ground targets.

If the Su-25s are now just lofting rockets and possibly also bombs at targets to remain out of direct visual view (which makes sense if the enemy have BMPS with 25mm and 30mm automatic cannons then maybe the time of flying right up to enemy positions and posting a couple of dumb bombs or a burst of cannon fire or rockets directly into them is over.

Maybe that is not safe with any level of protection...

The Americans go on and on about the 30mm gun of the A-10 and yet they laugh at the twin barrel naval 25mm gun turret and 30mm gun turrets that have been seen put onto MTLBs... the 25 x 210mm naval round and their old 30 x 210mm round are probably both more powerful than the 30 x 173mm shell the A-10s Gau-8 fires.

Of course a conflict with Ukraine is the worst case scenario because their air defence systems were better and more widely deployed than HATO countries normally have...

There were quite a few similar proposals from Sukhoi as well but I think this type of aircraft will only be suitable for COIN roles.
The T-720 was one of the final proposals. Very sleek looking machine!

My favourite is from the same group that upgraded the An-2 with all composite material...



But there were an enormous number of variations of design types I have seen...













They weren't even all turboprops:

I still think that Mig35 can have a role to play, but of course not as a su-25 replacement.

I don't so much see it as the MiG-35 replacing the Su-25 because that implies the MiG-35 will be flying the way the Su-25 does and it certainly would not do that... during the conflict in Chechnia Su-27s that tried to fly CAS like missions were easily shot down because fast fighters are never any good in CAS roles.

As far as the Su-25 and th CAS, they could try to establish a new assembly line for a heavily modernised version, with also several systems developed for the mi28 and Ka52 Helicopters.

Well that is something they need to decide... can they improve the Su-25 to the point where it can do the job or do they need to start from scratch and come up with something new that is better in every way... sort of a... do you upgrade T-72 to T-90AM level, or do you go for T-14 instead... is a T-14 even possible or will CAS always be vulnerable to air defence fire and standoff distances with long range sensors to replace getting in close and using your eyes.

Tanks have cameras of the day and night variety so there is less need to stick your head out of the roof hatch... a VR helmet mounted sight might give them a god view of the battlefield based on the cameras on the tank and also nearby drones etc so they can safely view the battlefield... perhaps the solution for CAS pilots might be drone view with complex electronics on board to defeat anything guided directed at them.

The A-16 and MiG-29 failed to replace the Su-25 because at standoff distances the field of view is enormous and the actual space where enemy could hide is huge and covering that to find all enemy positions is near impossible... moving enemy can be spotted easily, but stationary camouflaged positions are very difficult to spot before they open fire and when they open fire the it is often too late... because now instead of being the hunter you are the hunted.

A coordinated group of drones could fly over the battlefield finding and marking enemy positions and forces and standoff aircraft can lock on and launch weapons at those targets... even ground forces artillery can fire and a tank force could loft guided shells over cover to hit such designated targets too, but coordinating all of that making sure every target gets properly designated and a weapon is fired to hit that target from a distance that will actually reach would be complex...

Something they would probably need an intense war to work out.

It seems with drones they already they run relays of platforms that fly to areas and are taken over by local forces to find targets and even hit targets... a level of complexity beyond just a guy with a drone in a suitcase and a remote control device.

Again let Mig35s make their job, which can also include ground attack, but with completely different missions and profiles than aircrafts like the su-25 or the American a-10 can do, and let have a proper dedicated and robust aircraft take the role of close air support.

Actually I suspect the job the A-10 performs... wandering behind enemy lines looking for enemy armour to hit, is less like the Su-25 and more like a role the MiG-35 might perform. The Su-25 is really more like a Stuka in the sense that it is called up by ground forces to deal with a problem they might lose a lot of men trying to handle... perhaps because the enemy are dug in and have all approaches well covered, so some 80mm rockets and 250kg bombs to get them to get their heads down and bust a few heads is what they want the Su-25 to do.

Maybe in the future we will have also su-25 (or su-25 derivative/successor) in UAV version.

I think suicide drones make more sense than drone versions of aircraft, because they can be designed and optimised to be disposable, which is not something any conventional aircraft should be designed for.

If you are going to fly in an Su-25 to loft 80mm unguided rockets from 5km away then I would think a much smaller drone with thick wings that have those new rocket pack boxes built into the wings that get 5km from a target and nose up and launch a volley of rockets at the target area would be just as effective... but something you want to fly right up to the target position and perhaps drop bombs... well a cheap disposable engine like that fitted to the V-2 doodlebug and two x 250kgs bombs designed into the fuselage so when the aircraft noses into the enemy position the fragments and explosion spread damage right along the enemy trenchline instead of burying into the ground... maybe even an aircraft that could uncoil a line charge like those mine clearing vehicles have done to fly down a trench line dropping a 50m long line charge into the trench and then boom..

I think the strikes real close to the front line will have to be done with drones. The MiG-35 would operate slightly behind the frontline outside of MANPADS, Avenger, and Strela range.

The optical sensors can detect tanks at 15 km range, and it can lase targets at 20 km range. This is well outside the range of ground launched infrared guided missiles. Strela for example has 5 km range only.

With AESA radar and new optics improving all the time and being fitted to their attack helicopters I would say standoff attacks are going to get better.

You are right to over estimate the range of Strela, because the Strela operator might not be located at your target.. they might be closer to the front line, so the more standoff range you can get the better.

LMUR has a range of 14.5km, but they should be able to improve that if needed... perhaps bigger wings to glide from a higher altitude launch, or just more fuel and less warhead... a dedicated anti armour version could have a 15kg HEAT fragmentation warhead instead of the 30kg warhead it has.

Not literally "doubling" in numbers, but diversifying.

Keeping competition... but when something has been decided then encouraging cooperation too...

Furthermore if Russia takes control of Ukrainian territory at the end of the SMO new airforce bases will needed to be organised.

New squadrons of Mig35 can be built in order to be assigned there.

You really don't need super long range fighters in european Russia where there are lots of airfields and they are not far apart, what you benefit from here is more aircraft filling the airspace better with fewer gaps.

Idk where you will find pilots for 4 to 5 new fighter regiments

Train them... they are expanding the size of the military... training some pilots would be useful.

You can easily take su25 pilots and rotate them from assault aviation to fighters

MiG-35 is very much a fighterbomber so it is in effect going back to frontal aviation where the enemy fighters and air defence are dealt with and then the other ground targets are hammered.

Claims the MiG-35 will be produced in numbers...?

The close up views of the MiG-35 in flight those flaps near where the leading edge root extensions meet the wing are rather interesting and are deployed at low flight speed.

I rather suspect it acts as a dogtooth to generate vortexes... in this case near the wing root at the edge of the LERX which would energise the air flowing through the vertical tail surfaces....

The Russian military should not base their orders and structure on what might sell well on the international market.

The real question to be asked is cost and performance.

The Russians don't want super cheap... they chose the MiG-35 over the MiG-29M... if the focus was purely on price they could buy the cheaper aircraft and then as the more expensive components of the MiG-35 got more affordable they could apply those things to the MiG-29M to upgrade it to MiG-35 level over time and save money.

But the Russian AF wanted MiG-35s, they wanted the capabilities of the MiG-35, but they are at the point of getting new options... the new MiG single engined or twin engined light fighters of the 5th gen and the Checkmate Sukhoi equivalent light 5th gen fighter.

Now none of these aircraft have flown and I would expect the MiG-35 with essentially hand made AESA radars are probably rather too expensive to serial produce in large numbers right away.

They have a decision to make... do they put the MiG-35 in serial production, which will lead to AESA radars getting into serial production for aircraft and a reduction in price for said radar elements making them more affordable. Wide spread deployment of AESA radars would improve battlefield surveillance for the Armed forces and communications would allow information sharing to a much greater degree which will improve the speed at which enemy positions are located and enemy forces are attacked.

Essentially it means recon sensors are moved to battlefield assets and so recon is massively improved and deployed in assets that can fight, as opposed to recon assets that look and run away if engaged.

Of course the 5th gen light stealthy fighters are probably 8-10 years away from serial production at the very least and not having a light numbers fighter available is limiting.

MiG-35s shown in India in model form had 1,500kg bombs on their inner wing pylons and the aircraft is claimed to have a 6 ton weapon capacity, which means they should be able to carry a max of four of them even though it would make more sense to carry two and perhaps two fuel tanks leaving four weapons pylons for two R-77 and two R-74... or maybe a centreline fuel tank and two wing mounted Kh-31s for self defence.

The question of course is how much impact does stealth design effect operational use.

With a MiG-35 you might fly at 7-10km altitude to keep out of MANPAD range while scanning for targets with powerful optics and AESA radar, but a stealthy 5th gen fighter might fly at 12km altitude and extend its flight range and use improved sensors to detect targets and signals that can be engaged with internally carried weapons that might never even know you are there.

But these planes probably haven't even flown yet let alone proven how much they cost to operate so the decision is not so obvious.

I think it is clear that Soviet level air defences make the A-10/Su-25 role just too risky and dangerous. Improved EO systems and radar in combination with drones that can be sent in to get the enemy to start firing so their locations can be identified and marked on maps, but is that a MiG-35 or Su-75 role operating 20km back from the frontline or is it an M-55 operating at 20km altitude or higher that is mapping these things out and passing on target information to artillery and helicopters and those MiG-35s hanging back with glide bombs they can be flying at above 10km altitude and accelerate and climb to higher altitudes and speeds and release a few bombs at once against widely separate targets in front of them.

At some point that M-55 might be replaced by an airship operating at 50km altitude with a small nuclear reactor powering radar antenna and lots of computers that heat the hydrogen in the airship to allow very high altitude flight with super light super strong composite materials as a structure.

Fabric with non permeable material used in ships to carry hydrogen in ships and pipelines could be used in small bags in the airship that can be inflated and deflated to change buoyancy... lots of protected bags in case of battle damage that can be filled to prevent a catastrophic dive and crash.

Such materials would be useful anyway.

I think the large drone experience of this conflict with the Turkish drones etc shows that in an actual war zone they are too vulnerable to be useful.

In peaceful situations monitoring water or areas of land from international or friendly airspace they are wonderful... cheap and easy to use while being effective in the role of recon and enemy detection and tracking.

In the Ukraine any heavy drone operated by Ukraine would be shot down easily, which is why the US didn't provide any to them... they knew their own large drones are not cheap and would be horribly vulnerable and easy to shoot down.

I think it is also being recognised that modern air defences means CAS aircraft will struggle even with armour and electronic defensive systems and that glide kits and standoff weapons might be the way forward.

For quite a bit there there was a gap where the Su-25 wasn't getting close enough to the targets to hit them with decent bombs that rocket artillery couldn't deliver but cruise missiles and ballistic missiles were just too expensive for.

This gap has been filled by not just new missiles but also glide bombs and also glide bomb kits for use with standard dumb bombs.

Their new bomb is like the SDB and is the same calibre as Smerch so it can be attached to a Smerch rocket and fired presumably 150km and then it can glide the rest of the way to the target with a guidance package with a 100kg payload... which is 203mm artillery payload size.

If they want more fighters and the rumours are true that they are going to serial produce the MiG-35 then that makes a lot of sense... it will have 90% the capabilities of the Su-35 over shorter flight distances (though not if they introduce inflight refuelling aircraft), but with a serious reduction in operational costs.

Needless to say if the mission is to take off from a Russian airfield and climb to 10,000m and accelerate to 1,600km/h and release four glide bombs and then turn around and go back to base and land then a MiG-35 can do that easily. With 250kg glide bombs it could carry four in tandem on the two inner wing pylons and have a couple of Kh-31 anti radiation missiles on the next two wing pylons and on the outer four wing pylons they could carry 2 R-77s and 2 R-74s for self defence, and have a fuel tank along the centreline in case things light up and it needs to loiter with its ARMs for a bit.

The operational costs of the MiG-35 are supposed to be about 40% the costs of the Su-35, and you can swap out the seats and make them two seaters if you want that for specific missions.

A centreline optronics pod along with the ground optronics pod that comes standard on the MiG-35 together with high resolution AESA radar scanning of the front line should collect loads of information with each flight and populate battle maps with real time information about enemy positions... some long wave IRSTs and it might even warn of a few drones around the place too... including drones operating on the surface at sea.

It is an entirely new airframe and it is IMHO overly optimistic to assume it won't have issues.

If they can meet the goals for price and operational costs it is going to be an outstanding aircraft that I think BRICS countries will learn to love as a real deterrent to hostile western actions.... not that a single aircraft type could make an enormous difference, but you don't buy such aircraft without all the systems needed to make it work, which is what will make an air defence network formidable.

Ironically the $30K per aircraft and 6-7K per flight hour operational time... even New Zealand could afford them if we were allowed by our overlords.

And this would be probably the final nail in the coffin of the already troubled MiG-35, given the current situation.

Don't be silly, the delay would be even greater with any of their other options, and the costs probably much much higher.

If the war in Ukraine ends before they get any new serial produced MiG-35s into service then that doesn't matter, they would be useful in confrontations with the west too and also for export, Egypt will likely buy some full standard MiG-35s with AESA radar and and upgrades this conflict might have made a priority.

The MiG-35 was designed to be easy to add new weapons to including R-37M long range AAMs. The new glide bombs and other equipment should be ready to go very quickly and easily.

I would say even India might be interested in upgrading its entire fleet of MiG-29s to MiG-35 standard and perhaps even Iran might consider production... both of which might involve licence production domestically.

It is put in very dire straits by the fact that all legacy planes in production are actually transitioned to wartime production and on the other hand 5 gen planes like Su-57 and Okhotnik-B are following suits, with one transitioning into it in the same period and the other preparing from initial, one shift serial production.

The issue is that the big Sukhois are not cheap to make or buy or run so having a fleet only of Su-35/30/34s would be too expensive, both to build but also to operate.

In comparison you could probably build three times more MiG-35s and operate them for less cost.

Such an investment could still have a sense for something completely new, or even better said novel as the Okhotnik, that offer also the advantage of being unmanned and utilizing components already in serial production themselves, not for a maybe excellent but still conventional plane that would require also to put into production a completely new set of hardwares.

Large drones have not really proven themselves just yet and mass producing S-70s because it s cheaper than producing light fighters is not a solution you want to be stuck with if it turns out these drones are not effective yet.

I suspect a component of the decision to produce MiG-35s is to replace the MiG-21s and MiG-27s and MiG-23s and Su-17s of frontal aviation that used to lurk over the battlefield hitting targets on the ground and in the air as they found them.

With the MiG-35s more advanced avionics we can assume it will also operate in a SEAD mode as well swatting targets that pop up and finding targets that are trying to hide or disperse.

MiG-35 would have had a reason to be in a normal peacetime condition, in which their inferior production and operative costs could have given them a place in the battle order of the VKS, now with such a conflict ongoing no one would care about such possible advantages.

It is a numbers aircraft... with a decent AESA radar and modern EO systems and the ability to pretty much carry most of the same weapons the Su-35/30/34 carry, but in smaller numbers, it just makes sense.

We see Su-35s carrying two bombs and maybe four missiles in Syria most of the time because they don't maraud, they normally have a target in mind when they take off and with bomb glide kits might never get very close to the enemy air defences. Flying around the front line looking for targets is just asking to get shot down.

Launching missiles at targets on the enemy front line with a few MiG-35s in the air 20-30km away over friendly airspace monitoring the attack and looking to see if any enemy air defences light up and if they do launching missiles like Kh-31 or other types like Kh-38 at them to wear down the enemy air defences... and monitor enemy positions.

That sort of information transmitted to commanders on the ground and receiving instructions from them as to which enemy position they want a 1,500kg glide bomb to hit in the next 10 minutes can make a real difference.

This is not just about Ukraine, but HATO might have a hissy fit and transfer 1,000 F-16s... and 1,000 HATO pilots might go on extended leave and be hired by Kiev to protect their airspace from evil Russia...

I am sure the Russia AD would eat them for breakfast anyway... but having a few more fighters makes sense and making those fighters MiG-35s makes the most sense IMHO because it will be cheaper and (eventually) faster to make MiG-35s than new types whose prototypes have never even flown yet.

I would also emphasize the importance of having a sufficient number of skilled workers. Russia does not have an infinite supply of aircraft builders, so the options are to either increase the production of Su-34/35 and Su-57 aircraft or gradually commence the production of MiG-35 while seeking out non-standard MiG-35 mechanics and pilots. During wartime, it seems unjustified to diverge resources towards developing new aircraft building capabilities. The Su-75 appears to be a more promising direction, particularly considering that the MiG-35 airframe is based on a design that is almost half a century old...

MiG has its own production lines and its IRST and AESA radar are different companies from the companies making the systems for the Flankers.

The value in making MiG-35s is that it is putting into use companies and subcontractors and factories that were not being fully utilised.

The MiG-35 is mostly automated just like the Su-35 so in terms of flying it, you would have a few hundred hours transition time and then you would probably be fine.

The new Single seat single engined 5th gen fighter that MiG is developing is likely fully funded and is probably moving forward too, but being a Russian Air Force project it is likely secret. They also had a light twin engined carrier based model they are working on too that would also be interesting in ship and ground roles.

GarryB responded to one of my post, what an honour...

Why the hostility?

Only, he called me silly and I'm not even exactly about what precise point I have been made he was referring to...

You post that the MiG-35 is dead.... just after the Russians mention they are putting it into serial production... should I proclaim you as a genius that know better than anyone else?

I didn't call you silly, just what you said regarding the MiG-35.

Did you not read Lancelots post directly above yours where he said:

We had reports that serial production of the MiG-35 had been ordered not that long ago.

On the fact that the development of the MiG-35 has been extremely troubled, I think is not the case as there is actually more Su-57 in service in the VKS than MiG-35, let's not even mention Su-35S and Su-30SM2 and that the serial assembly lines of all of such fighters are actually working full time while of the one that would eventually produce it, no news at all.
We didn't even knows if its own supplementary State Trials have been concluded and if there is a final evaluation of its own performances.

Most of the troubles centre around a hostile Sukhoi department that appears to like to sabotage MiG every chance it gets, and the fact that the organisation both design bureaus are part of has been managed by managers who were former Sukhoi managers.

The MiG-35 is the affordable lighter numbers aircraft to allow the Russian AF to have more aircraft in service without the enormous cost that would be involved if they were all heavy 5th gen stealth fighters.

Even the US couldn't afford an all F-22 fleet to replace the F-15 and F-18 so their solution was the F-35... and now with the exploding costs and actual operational problems with the F-35 they are putting the ancient F-15 back into producion.

In fact you could say it was dead and buried but now it has been dug up and wiped down and polished up.

The MiG-35 is rather more affordable and has rather fewer issues than the F-35 programme... even if the MiG-35 has not so far been produced in comparable numbers or adopted by the same number of countries.

That doesn't obviously mean nothing, it a question of priorities, in the case there is an operational need of a medium sized manned fighter plane for export or even for some internal use it could eventually came out handy to have it in the portfolio.

But you are still nailing it into a coffin...

What i'm instead deeply dubious about is the convenience of starting its own serial production HERE and NOW, instead of pushing further on increasing the production rate of the Su-57 or the beginning of the same serial production phase of the S-70 derivative that was instead instead reiterated various time it will begin in the second half of this year, once its own State Trials would be completed.

Perhaps because Sukhoi is already busy making planes so expanding production puts pressure on their factories and subcontractors.

MiG, on the other hand gets their engines and their radar and their systems and subcontracted components from all different producers and the aircraft are made in different factories that are not currently busy working to make a wide range of Flanker aircraft at a faster rate.

And GarryB, sorry but comparing the S-70 to an Armed Drone like the Bayraktar or even the Akinci as you talk about heavy drone is just flat out laughable as it is instead a full fledged 5 gen (if not 6 gen) UCAV offering the same internal bomb bay payload of a Su-57 (except obviously the gun and the two side bays for short range AAMs), the same engine used for Sukhoi's actual fighters and state of art avionics.

S-70 might have a bright future and might help to keep the pilots of the manned aircraft they operate with alive to survive the sortie, but they are not really a tried and tested replacement for manned fighter aircraft AFAIK.

The fact of the matter is that large drones are largely untested... they might operate like a cruise missile that returns to be reloaded and reused... in many ways the S-70 could be considered an unmanned F-117 but with much better flight range and probably higher bomb capacity, but we don't know if it is just a glorified reusable cruise missile, or something comparable to a manned aircraft.

Certainly western large drones have not been sent to Kiev because they clearly have no faith they would survive very long against Russias AD.

Right now western air defence is pathetic so maybe S-70s might be ideal, but I can't see the Russian AF banking on that and putting all their eggs in that basket.

They used to have lots of light aircraft to support army operations... called Frontal Aviation. Going for all heavy fighters and strike aircraft they don't have that any more.

The question of course is do they want it?

MiG-35s are not the MiG-29s of the cold war, they are fully digital and carry powerful sensors and a wide range of weapons and equipment... they are probably better equipped now than the Su-24s and MiG-27M or MiG-27K or Su-17M4 were in the 1980s... all rolled in to one aircraft.

Can they be shot down... of course... there are no planes that can't be shot down that is just silly.

Here the alternative production I was talking about, available at a short notice and offering a way longer perspective of service and further development than the one offered by what is still essentially a basic 4 gen plane with some structural refinement and some fancy avionics added.

Made in Sukhoi factories that are already busy and training fighter pilots to use wingman drones effectively might take some time too.

Just, I'm absolutely convinced that the MiG-35 is NOTHING of such a thing, sorry if you think otherwise.

Yes, of course, its normal to just throw away a 4+ generation fighters technology because you have decided it is obsolete, I am sure the Americans are making a huge mistake digging up F-15s which are even older and putting new systems and equipment in them and serial producing them because obviously anything that is not stealthy is dead... which is why everyone writes off all European fighters that are not F-35s because obviously everything is not stealthy.

Not being silly here... it is sarcasm.

So it uses different suppliers than the ones used for the Su-57, Su-35, Su-30SM2, Su-34M.

It is funny that so many underestimate the MiG, simply because the Flankers have bigger numbers in some areas.

In a real conflict the MiG should be able to operate from smaller runways and while it does not carry the same number of weapon pylons, most operational missions with the Flanker appear to show the Flankers operating with most of their weapon pylons empty anyway.

Serbian MiG-29s with non functional radars not being able to take on HATO have damaged the name of the aircraft forever it seems, and Iraqi efforts have not helped either.

Ironic really because a MiG-35 can carry all the air to air weapons an Su-35 can carry (types, not numbers).

Current advances in the Ukraine conflict seem to be credited to the FAB-1500 bombs being used with glide kits... but I don't think Su-34s or Su-35s are carrying 6 of these weapons each on each mission, so for a fraction of the price MiG-35s could be delivering those glide bombs to target for less financial costs.

What is not to like?

Not every plane in the Russian AF needs to fly 4,000km with 7 tons of payload to get the job done... and if the MiG-35 can do it for $7K per flight hour then why not?

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think the new 5th gen light fighters are too far away to bank on them just now, and producing the MIG-35 would get funds and production experience into a group of companies and subcontractors that have been otherwise starved of funds the last few decades.

MiG will be working on their 5th gen avionics and systems and radars and engines for their new aircraft and having an in production aircraft to test systems with makes a lot of sense.

Ironically I would say if you want a numbers platform to be the S-70 then it would actually probably make more sense to use a lighter cheaper aircraft with that drone... numbers are numbers so having more fighters to operate with more wingman drones gives you even more platforms and more weapons bays.

No, Garry , you are mistaken...I'm really honoured and grateful you replied me.

Now you are confusing me... are you being sarcastic or genuine... I reply to everything I am interested in... the trick is getting me to shut up.

Diversity of opinion is the salt of a DISCUSSION forum so having the interest of a competent member like you is a great thing overall.

A very mature thing to say... assuming you are being sincere and not sarcastic....

Naturally , in a discussion you can use some irony and use figures of speech (dire straits, nail in the coffins...), in the case this lead you to sense any hostility, I'm sorry, my fault.

I admit that the MiG-29 is a bit of a sore spot as far as I am concerned, because I have always liked the aircraft since it was first shown publicly on a visit to Finland in the 1980s.

For a while it was the boogeyman that the west talked up and respected, but then the Flanker appeared and all of a sudden the MiG became a joke really... even when kicking arse in the 1990s during HATO testing with west german pilots, the secrets were out and HATO aircraft could train against them and learn their strengths and weaknesss... except that was an old model B version for Warsaw Pact export that had none of the neat stuff the Soviet and Russian MiGs had.

The East German MiG-29 didn't have BVR IR guided missiles, only the SARH R-27 and R-73s, but they worked out that the R-73s and helmet mounted sights made the aircraft too dangerous to get anywhere close.

In the 1980s HATO thought they would dominate the skies over Europe because their sidewinders and new fighter aircraft were considered unbeatable in a dogfight.

In the 1990s they found they would have gotten their arses kicked because the R-73 was an excellent missile where even if they managed to get a shot off before their own aircraft were shot down the R-73 was probably going to kill them anyway.

The US funded the AMRAAM and decided to avoid the situation by avoiding dogfighting all together... and screwed the UK again because the plan was AMRAAM made by the US for BVR missile and ASRAAM made by the UK for short range AAM, and they ended up with AIM-9X and Iris-T and no standard short range AAM for HATO.

Then a decade with no money so it made more sense to have fewer aircraft that could cover large areas of nothing, and then a decade when the focus was getting the heavy 5th gen fighter up and running... and now they are looking like actually spending money on the MiG-35 people are still talking about coffins for the aircraft when the Americans are putting F-15s back into production because their F-22 sucks and the F-35 is no better.

They will be spending probably the better part of 250 million per F-15, but at least it should be mission capable.

And I'm having nothing against product of Mig corporation and the -35 itself, at the contrary I regret that in its developmental process they went on a wrong track and so put its adoption in jeopardy.

Have had a long discussion with LSOS about the aircraft and about all the things MiG did wrong but as far as I can tell they actually did everything right.

When they developed the MiG-29 they also developed a single engined version which the Russian AF rejected.

There is lots of talk about someone moving from MiG to Sukhoi with the body shape that is so familiar now and lots of claims that MiG copied Sukhoi or Sukhoi copied MiG.... I would say looking at the first flying prototype of the Su-27 it was Sukhoi that took the MiG-29 design and scaled it up and gave it a longer nose and a dick between its engines.

I don't care who copied who... both are beautiful aircraft in their own right and I am happy one has had such great success, but don't understand why the other gets shat on so regularly.

Against the Russian forces neither the Su-27 nor the MiG-29 seems to be super planes, yet both appear to be able to operate from rough airstrips and difficult to eliminate completely.

On a punctual reply, let's give me a few more time, i'm rather busy today and between New Zealand and Italy there is 12 hours, so I was in the lunch pause a.t.m. i noticed your reply.

I apologise and over reacted... the sudden good news that it was going into serial production appeared to be snatched away and I was upset.

With new modern avionics and new radar and new engines a MiG-35 is as good as any other modern aircraft flying today for doing 95% of all the jobs it would need to do (excluding stealth jobs of course)... when launching missiles or delivering bombs the target is not going to realise it came from this or that aircraft.

The core difference is that the MiG-35 can do most of the things a vastly more expensive aircraft can do and it does it much much cheaper.

The purchase price is not cheap compared with other Russian aircraft, but I suspect that is largely because the new AESA radar will be expensive and have a failure rate that costs money, so it may give better performance than a PESA but there is a financial cost to that.

Over time and with volume production the AESA elements will become smaller and lighter and cheaper and their performance and reliability will improve by a significant margin and over time the purchase price will come down and the performance will massively increase... but that only happens when it goes into actual serial production... just making 6 means it will never cross that boundary... which was also frustrating.

Mig 35 can be cheaper to operate than sukhoi but it's still to high.

Its operational costs are much less than Flankers. That was its reason for being.

Looking the needs for their ukro war, they mostly just need something that can launch gliding bombs at high speed and destroy naval drones. Rest can be done by sukhoi.

I would think helicopters would be better for engaging naval drones except those well out to sea, but a MiG-35 can operate from smaller airstrips in smaller hangars and can fly as fast as the flanker and carry the same weapons as the flanker too... except probably the heaviest 2 ton plus weapons.

Mig-23 with its swept wibgs is a nightmare for maintenance and its weapon load is very bad and make it too draggy.

It was developed at a time when a decent wing design had not been created so it was as straight wing that could be adjusted for flight speed and flight regime.

A straight wing for takeoff and landing, a mid sweep wing for manouvering and speed, and fully swept for highest speed flight... it is not something you would be shifting all the time.

The more sophisticated wing of the MiG-29 and Su-27 meant it would work for takeoff and landing and supersonic flight speed.

That single engine mig they presented would be very good for such missions. But at mig they never made the most logical decision which is to produce something that sukhoi isn't producing because russian air force will always choose sukhoi (more common parts and they have now an experience that at mig they doesn't have).

People have suggested that the Yak-130 would be a great replacement for the MiG-29 as the light fighter and even as a replacement for the Su-25 where the back seater would control drones to find targets and then the Yak-130 would engage them from stand off distances.

The single engined 5th gen MiG fighter actually looks like a LIFT except the core difference is that it is designed to be stealthy from the outset, and designed to be a fighter from the outset and it is designed to have stealthy internal weapons carriage from the outset.

The Yak-130 is a cheap aircraft, but when you add the radar and avionics and systems it would need to become a fighter aircraft that lasts five minutes it wont be cheap any more... which is why you would pick it in the first place.

MiG seem to have gone for a very light aircraft design and made a stealth fighter out of that.

Would it be unreasonable to expect they got this right?

When the Russians looked at their strategic aviation they realised they had three big Tupolevs... the blackjack, the bear, and the backfire... the latter is their theatre bomber... while the first two really don't drop bombs any more.

Their solution was the PAK DA, but they knew they would need factories to build the PAK DA so they were smart... the Bear could be replaced and the Backfire could be replaced by this new subsonic flying wing stealthy bomber, but the Blackjack is still a potent aircraft so what they did was they put the Blackjack back into serial production and the production facilities that are making the Blackjack can also be used to make PAK DA bombers when the design is ready.

Getting more Blackjacks including upgrading the current ones is the quickest way to upgrade the fleet... upgrades also applied to the Bears and Backfires also boost the performance, but the money spent on production facilities for the Blackjacks means those facilities can also make the PAK DA when its design is ready and has passed its tests so the factory starts making Blackjacks and then makes PAK DAs as well to replace the Bears and Backfires.

Upgrades to their strategic bombers, while in the background developing a new bomber (PAK DA) means Tupolev can put new systems into current aircraft and work on next gen replacement systems they will develop for the PAK DA for perhaps 10 years time.

I am going to guess they are doing the same with the MiG-35 where the factories making the MiG-35 are being tooled up and will eventually be making the single engined light 5th gen fighter and perhaps also the twin engined light carrier based fighter to replace the MiG-29KR.

I would think it makes sense for Sukhoi to make an Su-57K for their carriers when they are ready.

First of all, having several airplanes, even if they are supposedly inferior, is a positive thing.

Not every job requires a super stealthy fighter with a 30 ton payload and a 5,000km flight radius.

The MiG-21 was popular because it was incredibly cheap.

There would be a wide range of upgrades that could be applied to the aircraft to make it useful and still cheap to operate.

Not to mention that the MiG-27 type attack versions and derivatives are really very good at their task.

The MiG-27K and MiG-27M were both excellent attack aircraft with built in avionics that some western aircraft carried in pods or not at all.

The Su-17M4 was also a popular aircraft.

Moving parts are always more expensive to maintain than non moving parts. Basic physics.

US planes are always more expensive to maintain than planes from any other country. Basic economics.

The Sweep mechanism of the MiG-23/27 was relatively heavy but it allowed the aircraft to operate from short rough airstrips and fly at supersonic speeds.

The acceleration of the MiG-23 was even better than that of the MiG-29... it was a rocket.

And for that matter, Russia (in addition to other countries) continues to use the Su-24, which is also a variable arrow aircraft.

Not to mention the Backfire and Blackjack too.

To begin with, I was referring to the years after the fall of the USSR. The 90s.
Then, he mentioned countries that already had those variable-sweep wing aircraft.
In that case, the costs would be partly amortized.

The problem then was that it was the end of the cold war and most countries wanted to save money on weapons rather than spend money on upgrading existing weapons.

Russia and most other former Soviet republics offered upgrades for their older aircraft but most countries around the world were not interested, and just snapped up any airframes that were put on the international market for sale.

Bit a few countries in the arse actually because Russia was trying to sell aircraft but countries bought aircraft from countries that operated the aircraft that were downsizing their fleet. This led to countries getting cheap prices for aircraft, but those selling those aircraft weren't selling spares and support equipment so those countries that got that great bargain had to go to the maker of the aircraft and were pissed off at the prices.

How would the local Ford dealership feel about you if you bought the entire fleet of old fords from a taxi service for rock bottom prices and then went to the ford dealership looking for parts and support and expecting big discounts.

I will give you a hint... when you buy a new car from someone you get perks and one of the perks you get is support contracts and deals on parts for if and when you need them.

Buying from one of his customers and then expecting good deals on supporting the products is naive... but they bad mouthed MiG over that too.

If you buy MiGs from Kazakhstan and you get your MiGs upgraded in Poland or Israel then don't expect to get great spares and support from MiG for bargain prices.

Actually some of their upgrades looked rather good regarding older aircraft types.

I would say a MiG-23 with an AESA radar and an Al-41 turbofan engine would be a real rocket ship... and the MiG-23 has excellent fight range performance.

A MiG-23 with R-23R and R-23T missiles would have been a real challenge for British Harriers in the Falklands war... but export models generally only ever had AA-2s.