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


+72
diabetus
Eugenio Argentina
ALAMO
RTN
The-thing-next-door
Belisarius
11E
Podlodka77
TMA1
sepheronx
Arkanghelsk
andalusia
caveat emptor
bitcointrader70
Rasisuki Nebia
joker88
Russian_Patriot_
Broski
thegopnik
kvs
Mir
Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E
Yugo90
UZB-76
lancelot
Finty
limb
littlerabbit
Kiko
Scorpius
PapaDragon
The_Observer
GarryB
Backman
Flyboy77
Begome
Sujoy
LMFS
Isos
ahmedfire
flamming_python
Gomig-21
slasher
mnztr
medo
owais.usmani
mack8
MC-21
Cyberspec
AlfaT8
Rodion_Romanovic
marcellogo
MiamiMachineShop
southpark
Big_Gazza
Austin
_radioactive_
Nibiru
Hole
ATLASCUB
hoom
magnumcromagnon
Tsavo Lion
franco
ultimatewarrior
Stealthflanker
dino00
miketheterrible
JohninMK
George1
GunshipDemocracy
AMCXXL
76 posters

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3249
    Points : 3251
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Mir Tue May 14, 2024 5:47 pm

    Of course there is, similar to how su35 was a tech demonstrator for things implemented on PAK FA

    No the Mig-35 and PAK PD is not similar in any way. The closest thing is the Mig-31. Perhaps you can turn the Mig-31 into a tech demonstrator, but a low flying short legged Mig-35 - no ways!

    As for the rest its pure speculation but as I said - things evolve - thinking on how they would implement something like the N036 on the PAK DP is backward thinking. You need to look at the "N040".

    PapaDragon, GunshipDemocracy and Gomig-21 like this post

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6034
    Points : 6054
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Tue May 14, 2024 6:31 pm

    Arkanghelsk wrote:Su75 is purely an export project and won't be ready in the next 15 years

    MiG-35 first demonstrator was flown in ...2007.
    it wasn't ready for 17 years tbh  lol1  lol1  lol1


    Перехватчик МиГ-35 начал создаваться в 2000-х годах. Первая выкатка истребителя состоялась в январе 2007 года

    https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2017/01/05/10462961.shtml

    During the last 17 years, only 6 have been made with pains. The Su-35 was designed around the same time, and there are ~110 in the RuAF with production at full speed.





    Mig35 is a solution here and now

    it's not.  6 prototypes made. No serial production not enough skilled workers.  Sukhoi hires new employees and runs all factories 24/7. And MiG does... anything? Besides PAK DP, where are the engineering teams or skilled workers to start any real production? What about avionics and engines? Who is going to do that if everyone is busy and overloaded?

    Theoretically, it's possible with a strong push from above, but it will just result in  diverting of resources from  the other programs. So no cheaper for sure.





    There is no need for Su75 in the VKS, while it is cheaper to operate than Su57, the mig light fighter is going to be smaller and cheaper than su75


    which precisely MiG fighter are you talking about? Su-75 was put on display soem story behind MiG is so far silens part of Sukhoi corp Smile

    PapaDragon and Mir like this post

    thegopnik
    thegopnik


    Posts : 1742
    Points : 1744
    Join date : 2017-09-20

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  thegopnik Tue May 14, 2024 7:19 pm

    someone just tell UAC to take the Su out and put mig on mig-75 just to shut this guy up lol1 I like his posts on the special operations thread but man I can't agree with these statements.

    PapaDragon, GunshipDemocracy, Mir and Broski like this post

    Arkanghelsk
    Arkanghelsk


    Posts : 3685
    Points : 3691
    Join date : 2021-12-08

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Arkanghelsk Tue May 14, 2024 9:16 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:

    MiG-35 first demonstrator was flown in ...2007.
    it wasn't ready for 17 years tbh  

    Real funny, and Mig29M? Mig29K? Mig35 is just Mig29m with AESA radar

    They don't need more PESA radar, they need cheap multirole jets with AESA

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    During the last 17 years, only 6 have been made with pains. The Su-35 was designed around the same time, and there are ~110 in the RuAF with production at full speed.

    6 because they are just an initial order, and someone from the MOD probably lowered the order because of corruption, they didn't want to pay, and it's nice to line their pockets

    It's a good thing the shitshow at MOD is over, kaput, finished

    Belousov will go through what has been ordered and what has not been ordered, and why there is money for shitty projects like su75 to he introduced in 2056, and why mig35 orders were reduced when we need them now

    Everyday without more fighters is a chance that storm shadow leaks through the IADS and hits ships, submarines, bridges , airfields etc.

    MiG35 with Zhuk can easily detect Storm Shadow or Taurus and shoot it down for cheap, it can also use Grom and Izd 720 to conduct strikes on important targets like ATACMS or HIMARS

    That's all we need, not some glorified export project to reward sukhoi when they can't even get AL51 streamlined and they're looking at this vaporware project to make some more cash

    **** that, we need airframes, now, not 2056




    it's not.  6 prototypes made. No serial production not enough skilled workers.  Sukhoi hires new employees and runs all factories 24/7. And MiG does... anything? Besides PAK DP, where are the engineering teams or skilled workers to start any real production? What about avionics and engines? Who is going to do that if everyone is busy and overloaded?

    Thats what investment is for , to develop this even more and to create other designs that can compete with sukhoi, not just let sukhoi have a monopoly and **** Russia over waiting 50 years for them to come out with the next great vaporware


    which precisely MiG fighter are you talking about?

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 16303410

    Right here my man, single engine light 5th Gen MIG, and naval fighter with mig 1.44 stealth design

    And it will need a drone to interface with so they also have that too


    GarryB, Gomig-21 and Kiko like this post

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 13318
    Points : 13360
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  PapaDragon Wed May 15, 2024 3:58 am

    Arkanghelsk wrote:....
    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 16303410

    Right here my man, single engine light 5th Gen MIG, and naval fighter with mig 1.44 stealth design

    And it will need a drone to interface with so they also have that too

    Ah yes, MiG's most widely produced products: scale models pwnd

    Why make actual airplanes like Sukhoi does when you can make these far superior scale models?

    It's fiscally irresponsible to buy fighter jets when you can buy 1 million scale models for a price of a single airplane

    It's the economy, stupid! lol1





    Mir and Broski like this post

    avatar
    Belisarius


    Posts : 767
    Points : 767
    Join date : 2022-01-04

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Belisarius Wed May 15, 2024 9:56 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:The MiG-35 would have been a decent plane 15-20  years ago, but not anymore.

    If you really believe that then you know nothing about the combat capabilities of this aircraft.

    https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/mikoyan-mig-35/

    The Mig-35 competes against every other Russian fighter except the Su-57, and by stating it would have been a decent aircraft just 15-20 years ago you end up implying that VKS does not have any decent aircraft other than its 20-25 Su-57s.

    Investing in the development of an old design, which exhausted it's modernization potential, would be a waste of resources, both in terms of engineering and finances.

    Mig-35 has an old design, and has exhausted modernization potential, as any Flanker, and considering that the 5th generation counterpart of the Flanker, the Su-57, is already in production we can then say that the modernization and acquisition of more Flankers are also a waste of resources.

    GarryB, Rodion_Romanovic, Gomig-21, Kiko and Arkanghelsk like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39237
    Points : 39735
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  GarryB Wed May 15, 2024 11:04 am

    What are you talking about?! The Mig-29SMT was developed in the early to mid 2000's - by that time Sukhoi have developed several multi-role aircraft in the Su-27 family for the Russian AF and elsewhere!

    Both were upgrading their aircraft to be multirole but the Russian AF didn't buy MiG-29SMTs despite one of the features being lowered operational costs and expanded capacity... because they wanted the MiG-29 to be a cheap simple short range interceptor and the Su-27 to be a longer ranged interceptor... they are both cheaper when you don't need to buy expensive guided weapons for them... and training is easier too.

    Have you ever heard of buddy-buddy refueling? Both the Su-33 and the Mig-29K were fitted with with IFR probes and utilized the UPAZ-1A refueling pods using the buddy system.

    I have heard of buddy refuelling but on an aircraft carrier with AWACS duties being performed by Ka-31 helicopters, how far out do you think those fighters will need to fly and how many useable long range fighters will you have if half the fighters on your ship will essentially be tankers instead of fighters?

    It would make more sense to just use them all as fighters than to use some to extend the range of a few others beyond the range you are likely to detect targets in the first place.

    As tanker aircraft neither would be ideal because the MiG-29K probably can't carry a lot of external fuel and still get airborne, and the Su-33 can't carry external fuel tanks so it can only transfer what it has in onboard tanks and would then have to land again.

    Air cover was the primary mission but the Mig-29K was never rejected because it was multi-role! The reason was very simple - they had no money to buy two different aircraft for the carrier.

    The multirole performance of the MiG-29K made it a similar price to purchase as the Su-33 but with less flight range. On the positive side it could carry R-77s and all the air to air missiles the Su-33 could carry but its radar was smaller and it had less flight range.

    When the Indians paid to have the production line set up the Russian Navy took the chance to have their own aircraft made and that is because the MiG-29K is smaller than the Su-33 so with carrying them both they could carry more aircraft... and numbers do matter.

    For long range threats they can send out the Su-33s while most threats will be dealt with at closer range for which the MiG-29K is every bit good enough.

    The Mig-29's first flight was on 6 October 1977 whilst the T-10 took to the air on 20 May 1977.

    The T-10 was a terrible prototype that was found to have the level of inferiority to the F-15 that it was supposed to have superiority to said aircraft.

    The improved design, which looks rather more like the MiG-29 corrected the design and aerodynamic problems... the Su-27 is not a direct copy of the MiG-29, the Su-27 has a longer nose and of course the tail stinger between the engines to reduce drag and improve performance.

    The MiG-35 would have been a decent plane 15-20 years ago, but not anymore. Investing in the development of an old design, which exhausted it's modernization potential, would be a waste of resources, both in terms of engineering and finances.

    In ten years time when the Americans put the F-16 back into production it will be just fine.

    With a modern AESA radar and modern weapons, it is already more manouverable than any western fighter and with TVC engines it would wipe the floor with any of them... but keep pretending it is obsolete.

    Su-57 then Su-75 are the future.

    Keep ignoring the truth, the Su-75 is for export and is nothing to do with the Russian AF.

    ...and you all didn't take the S-70 Okhotnik in consideration.

    The S-70 is a support platform that operates with manned platforms or as a drone on its own... the display that showed the MiG single engined 5th gen fighter and the twin engined carrier based light 5th gen fighter also had a drone that was to operate in a wingman type capacity.

    Ok, it's subsonic but it would allow to wait for the Su-75 to be ready...

    The Su-75 is an export only product.

    Probably the Mig-35 will not be anymore produced after 2030, but it would be useful to have a certain amount of them (like one or two hundreds) produced in the meanwhile, while the new mid-light fighter is developed.

    Once the Su-57s have knocked down enemy stealth fighters is there a real need for their light fighter to be stealthy at all?

    The light fighter is a bomb truck that can defend itself... think F-16... and the MiG-35 is just fine for that.

    Unlikely independent - MiG nd Sukhoi are part of one company. Perhaps if MiG design team wpudl be rebuild till some degree they could provide im design phase their ideas. If we won't hear anything form Belousov soon MiG-35 is dead.

    The purpose of the UAC/OAK was to preserve the areas of expertise... the fact that you think the MiG-35 is MiG is amusing... Sukhoi going to make a single engined LIFT and a heavy supersonic interceptor too?


    Mig35 is a solution here and now which can provide a stop gap until PAK DP is ready

    MiG-35 is a good way to boost the numbers of fighters in the Russian AF without spending like Americans.

    The PAK DP is something completely different.

    All this bullshit about photonic radar is funny if you think any of it will be ready in the next decade

    To be fair everyone said hypersonic scramjet powered missiles were decades away too... and the S-500 for that matter.

    As long as MiG is in charge of PAKDP/Mig41, it absolutely needs an AESA

    It has a very specialist role... I would say they would develop the new radar for it and then create the aircraft nose to carry such a radar... rather than the other way around.

    So you recon the Su-75 prototype is only going to be ready in 2035 - interesting!

    It is a 5th gen light fighter... how long do you think it would take... how long did the F-35 take?

    Has Phazotron been de-funded? I don't think so but they seem to have some issues getting their AESA in the air.

    AESA radars are 90% a production issue... they need serial production orders and during production they will sort out the problems and make it better.

    Like everything else these things keep on evolving - I think you may soon get little N036 Byelkas.

    They have mentioned surface mounted antenna that basically form the outer skin of the aircraft and can therefore face in every direction as needed, but how they work... well who knows.

    There is no relation between the Mig-35 and the PAK DP - just upgrade more MIg-31's if there is a problem.

    The MiG-31 is already an upgrade of the MiG-25... not sure they could upgrade it again without a major revision of the design... I would say the Tu-22M3 might be a better place to start... huge radar space at the front, huge internal volume for engines and fuel and weapons... perhaps replace the swing wings with more swept modern wings for high speed flight while being able to operate from reasonable sized airfields.

    What Mig LF?

    The secret one we have only seen in model form:

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 16268010

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Bd721a11

    The pushback for the T-14 was its engines and even the Rostec CEO stated the tank was to pricey to be used on the battlefield, the only difference is the AL-41F1 is repeatedly proven and is not a new engine like the T-14. You literally brought an unrelated comparison as an argument for an unclaimed delay.

    The Su-75 is being developed by Sukhoi, but it is being funded by a consortium each with different demands and wants including perhaps wanting different parts to be added to their models etc etc. Negotiations could take years before they agree... especially if the Indians get involved.

    They are flying it 1st in 2026 than to set up a production date if the air force calls for it since they got other fighter aircrafts set to mass production.

    Even if it makes its first flight in 2026 the Air Force are not going to accept it based on whether it crashes or manages to land after its first flight... it will take years to develop and mature and negotiations with interested parties and demands for local production could cause lots of delays.

    4th gen aircraft, inferior radar and EW systems, wont profit in the market, Gives NATO something less to worry about than engaging Su-57s and Su-35s.

    HATO aircraft are not going to know the difference between an R-37M fired from an Su-35 or Su-57 or MiG-35... they will know if it came from a MIG-31 because it would reach a lot further from that aircraft as it tends to fly much faster.

    You honestly don't have a price tag estimate of any source that the Mig-35 is cheaper and if it is indeed cheaper, it won't be cheaper by alot. The Su-75 already has signed contracts for newer radars and infrared systems and the mig-35 is still stuck with a decade or older avionics systems, reduced RCS will also significantly give the Su-75 an edge for air to air or air to combat roles against NATO.

    MiG-35 is ready for production. Su-75 untested and unflown.

    Or they can save money with their continued use of 4th gen aircrafts and wait for a cheaper and more combat capable aircraft than the Mig-35 if they just wait a little bit.

    Instead of waiting twiddling their thumbs, they could put the MiG-35 into serial production and have a decent light numbers fighter that will make their Flankers and Su-57s more effective.... and fill the gaps between them.

    Of course there is, similar to how su35 was a tech demonstrator for things implemented on PAK FA

    MiG 35 can certainly be a tech demonstrator for the OLS, Radar, and other solutions developed by Phazotron/Mig for PAK DP

    PAK DP is an interceptor, while the MiG-35 is more a MiG-LMFS tech demonstrator...

    The MIG-35 could test and put into operation things being developed for MiGs light 5th gen fighter programme.

    Maybe Phazotron can develop larger AESA to use on first prototypes

    The point is, the more input there is into development the better the prospects for the PAK DP

    Just like the MiG-31 got the Zaslon radar designed especially for it, I rather think the PAK DA will get its own radar design too.

    In what world is there money or resources to build another export project so that sukhoi can make money? As far as I see it KNAAPO needs to focus 1000% on su57 production and increasing numbers

    If they devote any space to su75 , I think they should be penalized for prioritizing export revenue over the domestic needs of the VKS

    It they meet their goals I would say the Su-75 is going to be very successful and will more than likely end up being very profitable with no financial input from the Russian government or military.

    MiG-35 first demonstrator was flown in ...2007.
    it wasn't ready for 17 years tbh

    Which shows you the difference between a serial fighter aircraft and a demonstrators first flight. The SU-75 hasn't even flown yet and you are talking about adoption for service.

    During the last 17 years, only 6 have been made with pains. The Su-35 was designed around the same time, and there are ~110 in the RuAF with production at full speed.

    6 were ordered and 6 were built. Su-35 was ordered in larger numbers and they are still making them.

    The Ukraine conflict made them realise not every plane has to be a big expensive super plane because it is not cost effective to operate only Flankers.

    The Americans came to the same conclusion with both the F-14 and the F-15 leading to the introduction of the F-18 and F-16 respectively.

    it's not. 6 prototypes made. No serial production not enough skilled workers.

    6 serial aircraft, they are not prototypes.

    Sukhoi hires new employees and runs all factories 24/7. And MiG does... anything? Besides PAK DP, where are the engineering teams or skilled workers to start any real production? What about avionics and engines? Who is going to do that if everyone is busy and overloaded?

    So how is Sukhoi going to make Su-75s if there are no more workers... how are the engine makers going to cope making engines for Su-57s and Su-75s and S-70s?

    Theoretically, it's possible with a strong push from above, but it will just result in diverting of resources from the other programs. So no cheaper for sure.

    Were the 6 MiG-35s grown in farms?

    Were the dug up from the ground?

    Were they found in lakes or rivers?

    Or were they made in factories that make planes?

    They have made 6 aircraft over a rather long period they must be morons... maybe a childrens collective made them from bits of wood and papier mache?

    Or maybe they made them in factories and they only made 6 because their customer only ordered 6 to be made.

    See how that works?

    So the Russians have an aircraft factory that makes planes that only made 6 planes while Sukhoi factories made slightly more... 2 Su-35s this year... WOW... they are blowing them away aren't they?

    The point is that MiG has a factory to make its planes and most of its parts and engines and radar are made by companies that don't also supply Sukhoi with parts and engines and radar and IRSTs etc etc. This means those companies are probably not super busy right now so if you have half a brain you might realise there is production capacity that is not being used and giving them orders wont **** up any other supply chain or aircraft production schedule, but will result in the Russian Air Force getting more planes into service faster.

    Ah yes, MiG's most widely produced products: scale models.

    Why make actual airplanes like Sukhoi does when you can make these far superior scale models?

    It's fiscally irresponsible to buy fighter jets when you can buy 1 million scale models for a price of a single airplane

    It's the economy, stupid!

    MiGs work is kept secret and only a model is shown, while Sukhois design is shown to the world... tells me MiG is making the new plane for the Russian AF and Sukhoi is trying to get export order commitments to pay for their development programme.

    And BTW MiG might have spent a few thousand dollars on three small models... Sukhoi spent millions on something that does not fly yet.

    It is the economy stupid.

    Mig-35 has an old design, and has exhausted modernization potential, as any Flanker, and considering that the 5th generation counterpart of the Flanker, the Su-57, is already in production we can then say that the modernization and acquisition of more Flankers are also a waste of resources.

    New engines and new radar in an F-15 and all of a sudden it is the best fighter in the world... even better than the F-22 and F-35...

    The reality is that these aircraft will be operating in a system where their onboard radar and IIR sensors and IRST sensors will be useful but it is their weapons that will be the most important and I suspect the MiG-35 will be able to carry anything the Su-57 carries and looking at air combat in Ukraine long range missiles are going to be valuable and MiGs long range missiles outrange western missiles by a significant margin and with the introduction of the new R-37M replacement it is only going to get worse for western fighters.

    Rodion_Romanovic, Arkanghelsk and Belisarius like this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3249
    Points : 3251
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Mir Wed May 15, 2024 6:46 pm

    GarryB wrote:I have heard of buddy refuelling but on an aircraft carrier with AWACS duties being performed by Ka-31 helicopters, how far out do you think those fighters will need to fly and how many useable long range fighters will you have if half the fighters on your ship will essentially be tankers instead of fighters?

    It would make more sense to just use them all as fighters than to use some to extend the range of a few others beyond the range you are likely to detect targets in the first place.

    As tanker aircraft neither would be ideal because the MiG-29K probably can't carry a lot of external fuel and still get airborne, and the Su-33 can't carry external fuel tanks so it can only transfer what it has in onboard tanks and would then have to land again.

    You have to understand that both the Su-33 and the Mig-29K were old Soviet-era projects but everything fell apart once the country collapsed. Having said that - one of the last configuration for the Pr.1143.5 carriers would have looked like this:

    18 Su-27K, 28 Mig-29K and 14 Ka-27 helicopters that would have included 4 Ka-31 AEW helicopters. They could have easily used (say) 4 Mig-29K's as buddy-buddy tankers without any issues regarding the fighter component.

    Also - there were serious plans to develop the multi-role Su-27KUB into several variants that also included a dedicated tanker variant, but by then there was no money left for this fantastic aircraft.

    GarryB wrote:The T-10 was a terrible prototype that was found to have the level of inferiority to the F-15 that it was supposed to have superiority to said aircraft.

    It is really not uncommon for prototypes to suffer from certain deficiencies. That is why prototypes are built - to sort out design flaws and other issues before any serial production can start. Nothing new - from the Wright brother until now.

    Long before the first flight of the T-10 Pavel Sukhoi already said that the T-10 would be inferior to the F-15. One of the reasons was that the electronic industry, at the time, was unable to create light-weight components.

    The wing design caused vibrations and this called for a redesign. Naturally there were other modifications as well. Even in its redesigned format (T-10S) the T-10 to Su-27 linage was still very much recognizable.

    Here is the early T-10 compared to the redesigned T-10S:
    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 T10-t110
    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 T10-1-10
    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 T10s-110

    GarryB wrote:The improved design, which looks rather more like the MiG-29

    Here is the T-10S prototype in flight. To me it looks just like a Su-27 but if it still looks like a Mig-29 to you, you urgently need your eyes checked!

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 T10s-710

    Now compare that to the first Mig-29 project design as presented during the first meeting vs the actual Mig-29 prototype. Not much linage there but you can clearly see the blended wing design on the actual Mig-29 prototype - which was taken from the T-10.

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Mig29-15
    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Mig29-16

    GarryB wrote:The Su-75 is an export only product.


    As far as I know the Air Force is very interested in the Su-75. Like most Soviet/Russian aircraft I think the plan is to produce a down rated export version and an advanced version for the RUAF.

    GarryB wrote:The MiG-31 is already an upgrade of the MiG-25...


    No it isn't.

    GarryB wrote:The secret one we have only seen in model form:

    vaporware as you say...btw it looks remarkably like the Yak-130 in a stealthy jacket. If it was such a big secret they would not even show it in model form - much like the still unseen PAK DP. These models of vaporware are clearly aimed at the export market. Unfortunately they did their excellent Soviet-era reputation no favours with the **** up around the Mig-29SMT.

    Gomig-21 and Broski like this post

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 13318
    Points : 13360
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  PapaDragon Wed May 15, 2024 7:11 pm


    It's going to be epically hilarious when UAC finally folds whatever still exist of MiG into Sukhoi and discontinues the whole MiG brand lol1







    Broski likes this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3249
    Points : 3251
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Mir Wed May 15, 2024 7:14 pm

    It a tragedy actually but yes sadly it looks like MiG is heading that way Neutral

    PapaDragon, Gomig-21, thegopnik and Broski like this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11332
    Points : 11302
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Isos Wed May 15, 2024 7:38 pm

    They went backward instead of forward in the 2000s. It's their fault. They developed a 5th generation mig-1.44 in the 90s to counter the f-22 and went back to the dumb mig-29 in the 2000s that failed miserably in all the wars it participated which impacted its reputation on the export market.

    Their last shot is this single engine aircraft above. The only area where they can propose an innovative plane in Russia is the light single engine category. If they don't, mig-41 will become su-41 and the rest will go to garbage.

    PapaDragon likes this post

    Arkanghelsk
    Arkanghelsk


    Posts : 3685
    Points : 3691
    Join date : 2021-12-08

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Arkanghelsk Wed May 15, 2024 8:23 pm

    Let's wait for that 8.7% of GDP spending to hit UAC and then MiG

    We will see

    GarryB and Rodion_Romanovic like this post

    sepheronx
    sepheronx


    Posts : 8588
    Points : 8850
    Join date : 2009-08-05
    Age : 34
    Location : Canada

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  sepheronx Thu May 16, 2024 3:27 am

    There isn't a necessity go MiG-35 anymore.

    Su-30, 34, 35 and 57 are filling the necessary rolls with Su-30 most likely to end up getting discontinued in favor of more Su-57.

    MiG's roll is still important. With MiG-31 upgrades and maintenance and the inevitable replacement of the MiG-31. So if money is to be allocated to Mikoyan, it will most probably resort to future interceptor which is proven to be still very much important and needed roll.

    Hopefully UAC has a plan.

    Mir and Broski like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39237
    Points : 39735
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  GarryB Thu May 16, 2024 4:04 am

    18 Su-27K, 28 Mig-29K and 14 Ka-27 helicopters that would have included 4 Ka-31 AEW helicopters. They could have easily used (say) 4 Mig-29K's as buddy-buddy tankers without any issues regarding the fighter component.

    The intention of inflight refuelling is to top up aircraft just after they take off so they can trade weight of fuel for extra weapons... once they get airborne they can top up the fuel and therefore carry more weapons than they would otherwise be able to get airborne with.

    They also use inflight refuelling at a distance from the airfield to allow other aircraft operating away from the airfield to remain on station.

    Another role is aircraft going on and coming back from a long range strike to extend their striking range.

    Only having four inflight refuelling planes and those planes being based on the MiG-29s would limit how much fuel they could carry and transfer... a strike package of four Su-33s might need 8 MiG-29s to supply enough fuel to fill the fuel tanks of those larger aircraft...

    Does the Su-33 have wet pylons?

    The Su-27 doesn't.

    Also - there were serious plans to develop the multi-role Su-27KUB into several variants that also included a dedicated tanker variant, but by then there was no money left for this fantastic aircraft.

    It would make more sense to have the Su-33s as the tankers as they have rather more capacity for carrying fuel, which could be further increased by adding external fuel tanks...

    It is really not uncommon for prototypes to suffer from certain deficiencies.

    Of course... you never go from drawing to serial production... you have to test to make sure all your calculations are right.

    Nothing new - from the Wright brother until now.

    Funny you mention the Wright brothers... how many planes have you ever seen that look like the Wright flyer...


    Here is the T-10S prototype in flight. To me it looks just like a Su-27 but if it still looks like a Mig-29 to you, you urgently need your eyes checked!

    Plenty of laymen can't tell them apart...

    The F-15 also looks like the MiG-25... same layout, but no American would ever allow the suggestion it was a copy... but again to the layman they do look very similar, while the F-15 does not look like any previous American aircraft type.

    Not much linage there but you can clearly see the blended wing design on the actual Mig-29 prototype - which was taken from the T-10.

    Ahh, so the suggestion that Sukoi copied MiG is blasphemy but casual claims that MiG copied Sukhoi are OK... interesting.

    That model looks as much like the Yak-141 as it does the MiG-25.

    And yet the final MiG-29 and Su-27 have the basic layout of the MiG-25 and F-15...two engines two tail fins...

    As far as I know the Air Force is very interested in the Su-75. Like most Soviet/Russian aircraft I think the plan is to produce a down rated export version and an advanced version for the RUAF.

    It is not being funded by the Russian AF, that is why it was advertised at MAKS... they need interest from foreign customers to fund the development of what is essentially a Sukhoi project.

    No it isn't.

    Of course it is. Same layout with the guy in the radar van for the MiG-25 sitting in the rear of the MiG-31.


    vaporware as you say...btw it looks remarkably like the Yak-130 in a stealthy jacket.

    I would suspect it would be more advanced than the Su-75 because it will be getting funding.

    And a stealthy Yak-130 is ideal for the light 5th gen fighter role... cheap enough to buy in large numbers and use in large numbers.

    Everyone has been whining that the MiG-35 is too big and heavy and has two engines so it can't be cheap to operate, well this new design matches what the RuAF seems to want.... of course they change their mind all the time so there is the twin engined 5th gen light carrier based fighter alternative if they want two engines.

    If it was such a big secret they would not even show it in model form - much like the still unseen PAK DP.

    With the flashy show Sukhoi made with the Su-75 including towing it on the runway, most missed it anyway.

    Unfortunately they did their excellent Soviet-era reputation no favours with the **** up around the Mig-29SMT.

    And Algeria bought MiG-29M2s anyway... interesting that.

    Most export customers for MiGs have changed to the dark side and want F-16s and F-35s now.

    Let them fester in their own excrement.

    It's going to be epically hilarious when UAC finally folds whatever still exist of MiG into Sukhoi and discontinues the whole MiG brand

    The purpose of OAK/UAC was to preserve the technical capacity while removing duplication of management.

    If they get rid of MiG they will end up with Boeing and Airbus levels of corruption...

    They developed a 5th generation mig-1.44 in the 90s to counter the f-22 and went back to the dumb mig-29 in the 2000s that failed miserably in all the wars it participated which impacted its reputation on the export market.

    They did develop a counter to the F-22 and it seems the Chinese really liked it, but the Russian AF chose the Su-57.

    You could get about 5 MiG-35s for the price of a Rafale and operate all five on a fraction of the operating costs of that Rafale.

    The only thing wrong with the MiG-35 is that it is not in serial production.

    Their last shot is this single engine aircraft above. The only area where they can propose an innovative plane in Russia is the light single engine category. If they don't, mig-41 will become su-41 and the rest will go to garbage.

    Garbage? How American of you.

    We will see

    Exactly... so many whining bitches complaining about an aircraft they clearly know very little about.

    The MiG-29 was already better than most western fighters and now its upgraded version takes it to a new level yet still for a fraction of any western fighter... there are no western fighters that are cheaper to buy or cheaper to operate.

    It is certainly not perfect, but it has rather more potential than Eurocanard trash.

    And the less said about the F-35 the better.

    Western experts talk about new 5th gen fighter programmes ignoring that current western 5th generation fighters are dogs, and they are disguising it all by calling their new planes 6th gen.

    There isn't a necessity go MiG-35 anymore.

    Su-30, 34, 35 and 57 are filling the necessary rolls with Su-30 most likely to end up getting discontinued in favor of more Su-57.

    If a light fighter was not needed then Su-75 and the single engined MiG and no doubt Yakovlev probably have a design too are just wasted money?

    The money spent on them suggests an affordable light fighter is needed and right now the only aircraft that fits that description is MiG-35.

    The alternative is nothing.

    Arkanghelsk likes this post

    Broski
    Broski


    Posts : 675
    Points : 673
    Join date : 2021-07-12

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Broski Thu May 16, 2024 4:28 am

    There's definitely a future for the MiG-35 as a cheap to operate, throwaway jet for low to medium intensity conflicts, border patrol, deployment to third world shitholes that aren't trustworthy like Armenia and the Central Stans, freebies to gift allies like Syria and North Korea and to add numbers where quantity matters more than quality.

    But...
    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Bd721a11

    The UAC ain't going to spend billions of dollars developing vaporware aircraft that literally already exist in the form of S-70, Su-75 and Yak-130. MiG's future will ultimately be playing 2nd fiddle to Sukhoi at best, and there's nothing wrong with that. The PAK-DP is going to be their flagship project and Russia is going to need 100+ high speed interceptors minimum to hunt B-52's, AWACS aircraft, refueling tankers, attack priority ground targets and overall to keep the warmongering NATO psychos humble and honest.

    PapaDragon likes this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11332
    Points : 11302
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Isos Thu May 16, 2024 6:36 am

    There is no future for mig-35.

    Garry you don't see the big picture. They won't buy a plane because it cost 4 times less than a western plane. It needs to fit in their overall strategy which until now was go for the big birds only.

    PapaDragon likes this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3249
    Points : 3251
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Mir Thu May 16, 2024 7:11 am

    GarryB wrote:The intention of inflight refuelling is to top up aircraft just after they take off so they can trade weight of fuel for extra weapons...

    Good to see that you've brushed up on inflight refueling.

    GarryB wrote:Does the Su-33 have wet pylons?

    The whole Su-27 family do not require any wet pylons due to their enormous range which means they can carry a huge number of weapons.
    The Mig-29 being very short ranged - needs wet pylons, but that limits it's weapons load dramatically.  

    GarryB wrote:    
       
    Mir wrote: Also - there were serious plans to develop the multi-role Su-27KUB into several variants that also included a dedicated tanker variant, but by then there was no money left for this fantastic aircraft.
    It would make more sense to have the Su-33s as the tankers as they have rather more capacity for carrying fuel, which could be further increased by adding external fuel tanks...

    It seems like you have no idea what the Su-27KUB is?

    GarryB wrote:Plenty of laymen can't tell them apart...

    The F-15 also looks like the MiG-25... same layout, but no American would ever allow the suggestion it was a copy... but again to the layman they do look very similar, while the F-15 does not look like any previous American aircraft type.

    You definitely need to get your eyes tested...seriously!

    GarryB wrote:Ahh, so the suggestion that Sukoi copied MiG is blasphemy but casual claims that MiG copied Sukhoi are OK... interesting.

    I'm just showing you the historical facts - not some bs claims.

    GarryB wrote:
    Of course it is. Same layout with the guy in the radar van for the MiG-25 sitting in the rear of the MiG-31.

    They are vastly different aircraft from different generations.

    PapaDragon and Gomig-21 like this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3249
    Points : 3251
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Mir Thu May 16, 2024 7:15 am

    Broski wrote:
    But...

    The UAC ain't going to spend billions of dollars developing vaporware aircraft that literally already exist in the form of S-70, Su-75 and Yak-130. MiG's future will ultimately be playing 2nd fiddle to Sukhoi at best, and there's nothing wrong with that. The PAK-DP is going to be their flagship project and Russia is going to need 100+ high speed interceptors minimum to hunt B-52's, AWACS aircraft, refueling tankers, attack priority ground targets and overall to keep the warmongering NATO psychos humble and honest.

    Exactly.

    I would just replace the B-52's with B-21's Wink

    PapaDragon likes this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3249
    Points : 3251
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Mir Thu May 16, 2024 8:02 am

    Forgot to mention:

    GarryB wrote:Only having four inflight refuelling planes and those planes being based on the MiG-29s would limit how much fuel they could carry and transfer... a strike package of four Su-33s might need 8 MiG-29s to supply enough fuel to fill the fuel tanks of those larger aircraft...

    Maybe you did not notice but I did say "(say)".

    Mir wrote:They could have easily used (say) 4 Mig-29K's as buddy-buddy tankers without any issues regarding the fighter component.

    GarryB likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39237
    Points : 39735
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  GarryB Thu May 16, 2024 9:27 am

    There's definitely a future for the MiG-35 as a cheap to operate, throwaway jet for low to medium intensity conflicts, border patrol, deployment to third world shitholes that aren't trustworthy like Armenia and the Central Stans, freebies to gift allies like Syria and North Korea and to add numbers where quantity matters more than quality.

    It is a sophisticated modern fighter, there is nothing throw away about it.

    During WWII there were light tanks and medium tanks and heavy tanks... heavy tanks were heavy and slow and expensive... no one built more than about 7-8 thousand heavy tanks through the war yet enormous numbers of light and medium tanks were built by several sides.

    Not every job required a heavy tank and having an armoured force with only heavy tanks makes your armoured for expensive to buy and to operate and seriously limits the number you can afford to operate.

    It is not rocket science... numbers are important too... you can't have a navy that just has cruisers and you can't have an air defence system that only has S-400s and S-500s.

    It is the smaller lighter aircraft that gives your force depth... it is a cheaper aircraft to allow you to have numbers... it is not as good as your top aircraft in some areas, but it is good enough and better than previous generation types.

    In a net centric battlefield a modern fighter is not just a modern fighter, it uses modern sensors to collect information on the battlefield in real time that makes your information about the battlefield more complete and accurate.

    Having an Su-35 fly over the battlefield once a day means all the enemy air defence platforms get a chance to snipe that plane once a day... having five or ten MiG-35s operating over the battlefield all armed to destroy air defence systems and you put the enemy air defence on the back foot.

    You also collect rather a lot of real time information about moving targets on the battlefield in real time, and communication and cooperation between your air force and your army is improved and can be coordinated to kill more enemy targets.

    Giving aircraft away to customers is never a good business model... they will expect free stuff and if you don't give it for free they will turn to your rivals to get free stuff from them.

    Free stuff is never free.

    More importantly whether you think MiG are making a new single engined fighter or Sukhoi are doing it... if they are making new single engined light fighters then they must have plans to set up fighter groups that will operate light fighters... why not start now?

    They will be developing some super radar for their new single engined fifth gen fighters and such radars could fit in a MiG-35s nose too so why not?

    The potential for upgrades is significant for the MiG-35 even now.


    The UAC ain't going to spend billions of dollars developing vaporware aircraft that literally already exist in the form of S-70, Su-75 and Yak-130.

    The Yak-130 was tested as a light fighter and failed, and is too expensive even as just a LIFT leading to MiG developing the MiG-UTS single engined trained to supplement it. The Su-75 is a private venture by Sukhoi for export, and S-70 is a drone intended to operate with Su-57s... I doubt it will be the only drone that operates with Russian fighters.

    MiG's future will ultimately be playing 2nd fiddle to Sukhoi at best, and there's nothing wrong with that.

    MiG could be making the light 4++gen fighter (MiG-35), the light 5th gen fighter (MiG-LMFS), the replacement for the MiG-31 ( PAK DA), and the L39 replacement light jet trainer (MiG-UTS)... doesn't sound like second fiddle to me.

    The replacement for the Su-25 suggested a few decades ago actually was rather interesting... the MiG-110, which had a straight wing twin propeller engine type with engines based on helicopter engines so parts and support would be cheap and available near the front line... it was a twin boom design that looked a bit like a Bronco.

    There were other light types related to that... a whole family of platforms. But of course there was no money at the time.

    It wasn't super armoured... it was designed to be cheap and easy to fix...

    Garry you don't see the big picture. They won't buy a plane because it cost 4 times less than a western plane.

    Look at the changes in people in charge... Putin said himself that money is important for defence too and having three times more aircraft because you buy a cheaper type that can be operated in large numbers to support the heavier more capable types makes sense.

    It needs to fit in their overall strategy which until now was go for the big birds only.

    The advantage of Flankers was that it could cover enormous areas in the far north and the far east where airfields are few and far between so range was useful and you didn't have a lot to protect so your operational density was not so critical.

    Now they will be focused in the west of the country where their main enemies are where a few heavy fighters just don't cut it any more and larger numbers of smaller lighter cheaper aircraft makes for better coverage without breaking the budget.

    Russia can no more afford an all Su-35/57 air fleet than the US could afford an all F-22 fleet... or ironically an all F-35 fleet... ironically because the F-35 is supposed to be the cheap numbers plane to replace everything...

    Good to see that you've brushed up on inflight refueling.

    I didn't just google that. Having aircraft that takeoff and empty their excess fuel into another aircraft and then land to refuel is not a great concept except in desperation.

    If you were going to use an aircraft in such a role you don't choose the small light fighter with limited fuel capacity... especially in this context because they didn't buy MiG-29Ks so they wouldn't have been able to do it anyway.


    The whole Su-27 family do not require any wet pylons due to their enormous range which means they can carry a huge number of weapons.
    The Mig-29 being very short ranged - needs wet pylons, but that limits it's weapons load dramatically.  

    And how often do we see these super Flankers operating in a war zone with a weapon on every single pylon?

    Payloads are not enormous except in sales catalogues... an F-16 has never flown a combat mission with a 7 ton payload and never will.

    A MiG-29K with drop tanks makes more sense than an Su-33 without them...

    It seems like you have no idea what the Su-27KUB is?

    It was going to be a strike aircraft but probably wouldn't make any sense without catapults to get airborne at any useful weight.

    I'm just showing you the historical facts - not some bs claims.

    You are claiming an entire design bureau is crooked based on bs claims.

    I guess the entire US Navy submarine fleet is crooked because some old biddy faked tests for steel sheets used to construct submarines... they must have all been in on it of course right?

    No evidence needed...

    They are vastly different aircraft from different generations.

    Yeah... I forgot the rule that every aircraft from each generation has to look completely different... like the Mirage III and the Mirage 2000... no evolution there at all...

    I would just replace the B-52's with B-21's

    Why... the Americans aren't... they are likely to replace the B-2s with B-21s, which should really be called B-2Ms.

    Maybe you did not notice but I did say "(say)".

    They added inflight refuelling probes to their Su-33s but didn't give them the capacity to carry external fuel tanks or buddy refuelling pods to refuel themselves away from Russian waters... The only planes on the Kuznetsov that could refuel the Su-33s would be the Su-25UTG and how much fuel could they possibly transfer... they only made about 10 of them and never too more than 2 or three with then when they sailed anywhere...

    Rodion_Romanovic and Arkanghelsk like this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3249
    Points : 3251
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Mir Thu May 16, 2024 12:39 pm

    GarryB wrote:They added inflight refuelling probes to their Su-33s but didn't give them the capacity to carry external fuel tanks or buddy refuelling pods to refuel themselves away from Russian waters... The only planes on the Kuznetsov that could refuel the Su-33s would be the Su-25UTG and how much fuel could they possibly transfer... they only made about 10 of them and never too more than 2 or three with then when they sailed anywhere...

    Look at the pictures below - these are Su-33's just in case you don't recognize them.

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Su33-t10

    GarryB wrote:And how often do we see these super Flankers operating in a war zone with a weapon on every single pylon?
    Payloads are not enormous except in sales catalogues... an F-16 has never flown a combat mission with a 7 ton payload and never will.
    A MiG-29K with drop tanks makes more sense than an Su-33 without them...

    Well it is known that unlike a bomb load, air-to-air missile do not impose too many aerodynamic restrictions on a fighter - especially on a Su-27! Even the Su-34 demonstrated extreme maneuverability with full missile loads. In the case of air-to-air missiles having them in numbers can give you a significant advantage over your adversary.

    Having to use drop tanks cuts deep into your weapons load - esp on the Mig-29's already limited loadout compared to the Su-27.

    GarryB wrote:It was going to be a strike aircraft but probably wouldn't make any sense without catapults to get airborne at any useful weight.

    It was a true multi-role design with full combat capability and could have also been used as a trainer - as in its original guise.

    I highlighted your last bit as it confirms that you know very little about this magnificent aircraft. Just briefly:

    The Su-2KUB was the first Russian combat aircraft to use so-called "smart lift devices" that optimized airflow. These devices provided optimum lift and maneuverability and even increased the range of the aircraft.

    The overall effect of all the aerodynamic changes gave the Su-27KUB a unprecedented high lift/drag ratio - resulting in a 10% overall improvement over the Su-33. The fuel load was unchanged, giving it up to 20% more range over the Su-33!

    With all the structural and aerodynamic changes to the Su-27KUB the empty weight was almost identical to the Su-33. The aircraft's TV engines would just add enormously to the above.

    According to Gordon the Su-33 is able to launch with a full weapons and fuel load from the 150m mark (shortest take-off position) on the Kuznetsov. Considering all of the above the Su-27KUB would have definitely had no issues launching from the deck of the Kuznetsov.


    What's more - is that unlike other Sukhois the Su-27KUB featured a wet wing and was also able to utilize the UPAZ-1A buddy refueling pod like the other Sukhois.

    However despite this, a dedicated tanker version was planned as mentioned earlier. The aircraft would have been known as the Su-27KTZ.

    On another point - the Ka-31 would have been replaced by a Su-27KUB AEW&C version with a radar similar to the Swedish Erieye mounted between the composite fins - with the rest of the radar system housed in the tail stinger. An ECM and ELINT version was also on the cards - but sadly the program was terminated on ground of costs.

    Fortunately we also know now that naval versions of the Su-57 is already under development, but in the near future UAV's will be able to take over many of these roles mentioned directly above.

    GarryB wrote:Yeah... I forgot the rule that every aircraft from each generation has to look completely different... like the Mirage III and the Mirage 2000... no evolution there at all..

    You never mentioned "evolution". I believe you used the word "upgrade" - which has a completely different meaning.

    GarryB wrote:
    You are claiming an entire design bureau is crooked based on bs claims.

    The Algerians picked up the issues on the SMT's very early on. Just imagine how easy it would have been for Mig's engineers and technicians!


    Last edited by Mir on Thu May 16, 2024 7:04 pm; edited 1 time in total

    PapaDragon and Gomig-21 like this post

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 13318
    Points : 13360
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  PapaDragon Thu May 16, 2024 2:07 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    You are claiming an entire design bureau is crooked based on bs claims.

    They tried selling used airplanes to Algerians and pretended they were new ones

    Of course entire design bureau is crooked

    This wasn't some botched paintjob, it was attempt at fraud on international level


    sepheronx, GunshipDemocracy and Mir like this post

    sepheronx
    sepheronx


    Posts : 8588
    Points : 8850
    Join date : 2009-08-05
    Age : 34
    Location : Canada

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  sepheronx Thu May 16, 2024 2:56 pm

    I believe not long after that incident there was a cleanup of sorts in Mikoyan.

    That said, I believe only plant they have is Sokol and that I'd already working at full in the upgrade and maintenance of MiG-31. Unless they have another facility I'm not aware of.

    GunshipDemocracy and Mir like this post

    Gomig-21
    Gomig-21


    Posts : 670
    Points : 672
    Join date : 2016-07-17

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Gomig-21 Thu May 16, 2024 4:00 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:

    They tried selling used airplanes to Algerians and pretended they were new ones

    Of course entire design bureau is crooked

    This wasn't some botched paintjob, it was attempt at fraud on international level



    It was a disaster of epic proportions and played a huge part in the unfortunate reputation hit of MiG and its further developments of the MiG-29 and eventually the MiG-35.  At least on the international level like you said.  That event -- which when you really put it into honest context and call it what it was -- was a criminal act.  No ifs, ands or buts about it.  That has effectively come back to bite MiG in the ass and haunt that venerable & veritable, historically well-renowned and legendary institution. What a shame.

    I can't speak for the VKS/VVS and how it affected their perception, but internationally, it was a crippling disaster from hell with the reputation hit MiG suffered from that.

    Despite that disaster, there was still hope in salvaging MiG's reputation, but they still botched it with their lackadaisical effort when the developed the MiG-35 but without a viable AESA radar.  Those who think that's a trivial element and didn't matter in the grand scheme of things are sadly mistaken.

    I've said it before on this board and still maintain it; the inability to produce the Zhuk-AE AESA radar 15 years ago and get it into the MiG-35 to compete with the likes of the F-16, F-18, Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon (not to mention all the Chinese fighters - J-10C - including their Soviet/Russian licensed copies they make) and so on, greatly contributed to where the MiG-29/35 stands today.

    Whether it was financial, logistical, technical or political, it doesn't matter because the bottom line is that it took too long and even once the radar was supposedly available, the marketing of the aircraft wasn't exactly stellar (which was a biproduct of the reputation hit).

    You just can't conduct mafiosi tactics, get caught doing that, then lag behind the competition in the most critical aspects of technology and expect success.  

    If somehow the MiG-35 ends up being even a mediocre success after surviving those two setbacks, it would be a miracle of biblical proportions.  Just a small success even would be amazing.

    The craziest part of all this is that it still has a chance!  Slim as it may be, it's still possible.

    sepheronx, GunshipDemocracy, Rodion_Romanovic and Mir like this post

    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 2454
    Points : 2621
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Thu May 16, 2024 4:02 pm

    sepheronx wrote:I believe not long after that incident there was a cleanup of sorts in Mikoyan.

    That said, I believe only plant they have is Sokol and that I'd already working at full in the upgrade and maintenance of MiG-31. Unless they have another facility I'm not aware of.

    The plant in the far east where the civilian SSJ and the su-35 and Su-57 are produced has also a lot of work but they manage. If needed Sokol can also be expanded or  the tooling for the mig35 could be transferred to another plant like irkut the su30 were produced or Novosibirsk, where the Su-34 are produced.

    The plants do not belong anymore to sukhoi anyway, they belong to UAC and UAC can decide to have an aircraft produced in different plants. What happened after 1991 with the design buros owning the plants is being reversed.

    But yeah, if it still makes sense for the french to produce and sell the raffle, then the mig-35 should have the same chances (provide it gets modern radars and electronics).

    Otherwise if Mig-35 is garbage, then also the latest version of F16, rafale and Saab are garbage as well.

    GarryB, Broski and Arkanghelsk like this post


    Sponsored content


    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu May 30, 2024 11:19 pm