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

    AMCXXL
    AMCXXL


    Posts : 1006
    Points : 1006
    Join date : 2017-08-08

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 40 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  AMCXXL Fri Jun 21, 2024 12:41 pm

    Mir wrote:

    Even before the SMO Sukhoi indicated that a naval Su-57 was under development already. They may well look at a naval version of the Su-75 as well - but nothing official on it as far as I know?

    Things have changed drastically since the SMO and I think the number of regiments will be significantly increased due to the perceived threat from NATzo.

    This is not the plan of Russian MoD

    There will be one Figther Regiment in every C.A.Army zone, this is 14 + Yerevan Air Group + Kaliningrad (currently under the Baltic Fleet command)

    The increase in numbers will be a 3º squadron in every Figther Regiment, like Vladivostok or Khotilovo

    Russia is very large , Su-75 has no sense except in closed areas like Kaliningrad
    Su-57 is the main aircraft for multi domain combined operatios, while Su-35 and MiG-31BM are the predators for destroy the NATO junk (combined with S-400, S-350, etc...)

    Mir likes this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3499
    Points : 3501
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 40 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Mir Fri Jun 21, 2024 1:50 pm

    I'll guess we'll have to wait and see.

    GarryB likes this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3499
    Points : 3501
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 40 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Mir Fri Jun 21, 2024 2:01 pm

    GarryB wrote:Are you drunk?
    No but you must be intoxicated as you were the one wanting the little boys playing with the big boys on the same field - not me. Right?

    GarryB wrote:so how is it inferior to an Su-35 in the same role?

    drunken

    GarryB wrote:Until the Su-75 actually flys and they can confirm orders for it it is also a fantasy... a rather more likely fantasy, but still vapourware.

    It has been officially stated that several prototypes of the Su-75 are already under construction - so no it's not vapourware at all.

    Now that you mention vapourware...the Project 33 was a Soviet (not a Russian) project that was started in the early 80's that managed to get to model form for wind tunnel testing. The whole project was killed well before the demise of the Soviet Union. The Mig-29 already entered service when Project 33 was started. It was only after the fall of the Soviet Union that they decided to retire single engine fighters.

    Project 33 was not part of that decision as you would like to claim below. It was long gone by then. The VVS dropped the project in 1986 already. The sole reason why they dropped it was because it was developed as a strike fighter, but by that time the VVS wanted multi-role fighters - like the Mig-29M and the Su-27M. Unfortunately your statement below is far removed from reality.

    GarryB wrote:The Project 33 was a single engined light 4th gen fighter that was still born because the Russian military at the time didn't want a single engined light fighter and rejected it so it didn't go anywhere.

    owais.usmani and Broski like this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3499
    Points : 3501
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 40 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Mir Fri Jun 21, 2024 2:35 pm

    GarryB wrote:People complain that the MiG-29 should have been single engined to make it cheaper and more different from the Su-27 and they had that idea too and it was rejected by their main customer.

    As far as I know there was a single engine Su-27 concept - the S-55 light fighter - but a single engine Mig-29 concept? Doesn't ring a bell...

    The S-55 was part of a wider family which included a trainer (S-54) and a mini Su-33 naval variant (S-56).

    BTW - I don't "hate" the Mig-35 as you would like to suggest. I just think the design as is, is dated. Not yet obsolete - but dated.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5953
    Points : 5907
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 40 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Jun 21, 2024 3:13 pm

    Even as "dated", it's still useful enough to be modernized.
    All those MiG-21/F-7, F-4/5/14/15/16/18, Mirages, Su-24/25/27/30 r also dated but been upgraded & used for decades in many AFs.

    GarryB and Rodion_Romanovic like this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3499
    Points : 3501
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 40 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Mir Fri Jun 21, 2024 3:30 pm

    Yes I have mentioned upgraded aircraft before - for poorer nations.

    Unfortunately the current conflict is heating up and is threatening to expand. Russia needs to expand its military with the best possible affordable equipment to defeat the west. Sukhoi claims the Su-75 can be produced for export for between 25-30 million US$. The more advanced version would probably cost the same for Russian service.

    The Mig-35's unit price is given at a tear jerking 48+ million US$! No wonder the Russian bought only 6 out of a planned 36. Same goes for the Egyptians who dropped the Mig-35 and opted for double the number Mig-29M's.

    Can you imagine how much an "upgraded" Mig-35 would cost!

    Broski likes this post

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5953
    Points : 5907
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 40 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Jun 21, 2024 4:04 pm

    Mir wrote:The Mig-35's unit price is given at a tear jerking 48+ million US$! No wonder the Russian bought only 6 out of a planned 36. Can you imagine how much an "upgraded" Mig-35 would cost!
    their estimate of $48M may be wrong; only 6 were procured for trials while they had more pressing needs to spend money on.
    Now they can build them to fill gaps & cover losses before upgrading them again later, if need be. They could replace all Su-33s on the Adm. K that may/will go to sea next year; those heavy fighters can patrol the Arctic and/or assist in the air war over Ukraine. Some of the any surplus MiG-35s may later be exported.

    GarryB and Rodion_Romanovic like this post

    Arkanghelsk
    Arkanghelsk


    Posts : 3833
    Points : 3839
    Join date : 2021-12-08

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 40 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Arkanghelsk Fri Jun 21, 2024 11:30 pm

    Mir wrote:Yes I have mentioned upgraded aircraft before - for poorer nations.

    Unfortunately the current conflict is heating up and is threatening to expand. Russia needs to expand its military with the best possible affordable equipment to defeat the west. Sukhoi claims the Su-75 can be produced for export for between 25-30 million US$. The more advanced version would probably cost the same for Russian service.

    The Mig-35's unit price is given at a tear jerking 48+ million US$! No wonder the Russian bought only 6 out of a planned 36. Same goes for the Egyptians who dropped the Mig-35 and opted for double the number Mig-29M's.

    Can you imagine how much an "upgraded" Mig-35 would cost!

    Lmao put down the hopium Laughing
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3499
    Points : 3501
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 40 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Mir Sat Jun 22, 2024 3:57 am

    Arkanghelsk wrote:
    Lmao put down the hopium

    What are you trying to say? Do you think the Russians should rather invest in a more expensive 4th gen fighter than a cheaper 5th gen?
    Thank goodness you're not the new Minister of Defense! Laughing

    Broski likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39648
    Points : 40144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 40 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  GarryB Sat Jun 22, 2024 5:08 am

    No but you must be intoxicated as you were the one wanting the little boys playing with the big boys on the same field - not me. Right?

    Hahaha... have you not been paying attention?

    Ukrainian MiG-29s and Su-27s and Su-25s all seem to be getting shot down.

    There are rumours of Su-35s and Su-34s being shot down or just being lost perhaps to friendly fire or in accidents.

    But you are trying to say that the Su-35 can do everything and MiG-35s will be shot down in huge numbers because their flight range is shorter? Because they can carry 5 tons of ordinance instead of 7 tons?

    During the first conflict (in chechnia) an Su-27 was shot down flying low and slow over the battlefield... some seemed to think they were trying to intimidate the Chechens and others claim it was a recon flight.

    Poor use of any aircraft will get it shot down.

    Losses in war are normal and the use of aircraft often saves lives on the ground... and Su-25 going to within 6km of enemy troops and lofting rockets and then flying back to base can blunt an infantry attack in its tracks... if you lose a plane once every 10,000 attacks then that might be acceptable compared with the cost and risk of delivering rockets to the front line and having them launch rockets themselves while trying to evade getting hit by drones.


    It has been officially stated that several prototypes of the Su-75 are already under construction - so no it's not vapourware at all.

    Until it actually flys it is not a plane yet.

    Now that you mention vapourware...the Project 33 was a Soviet (not a Russian) project that was started in the early 80's that managed to get to model form for wind tunnel testing. The whole project was killed well before the demise of the Soviet Union

    That is what I said. MiG were looking at a cheaper lighter alternative to a twin engined light fighter and had a long tradition of light single engined fighters... MiG-3, MiG-15, MiG-17, MiG-21, MiG-23... but the single engined model they designed was rejected by the Soviet military because they were not interested in single engined fighters.

    The Mig-29 already entered service when Project 33 was started. It was only after the fall of the Soviet Union that they decided to retire single engine fighters.

    That is right... which means the single engined Project 33 was started after the Mig-29 entered service as a cheaper lighter single engined light 4th gen fighter and was rejected before the fall of the Soviet Union and before they decided to retire all single engined jet fighter aircraft.

    As I said, some here whine that MiG didn't make the MiG-29 better by making it a single engined fighter, but they made such a fighter in the form of the Project 33 and it was rejected by the Soviet Air Force before they decided to drop all single engined fighters.

    The only single engined aircraft they had would be the An-2, the Yak-52, and L39 and now the Yak-152 and MiG-UTS and a few L39s still on the books and perhaps the Baikal will be added to that list.

    Project 33 was not part of that decision as you would like to claim below.

    I didn't say it was. I said it was rejected because it was a single engined fighter and in the 80s they didn't want single engined fighters... they made it a policy in the 1990s and seem to have stuck with that ever since.

    The sole reason why they dropped it was because it was developed as a strike fighter, but by that time the VVS wanted multi-role fighters - like the Mig-29M and the Su-27M. Unfortunately your statement below is far removed from reality.

    Well that is funny because the MiG-29s and Su-27s they had in service right through to the 2000s were not multirole at all, in fact Frontal Aviation planes have been swing fighterbombers for some time... even though the bomber part has been with cheap dumb bombs and rockets and nothing particularly interesting.

    The MiG-29SMTs were rejected because they didn't need multrole aircraft for the MiG-29 short range interception role... and they didn't want to pay extra for features they couldn't afford. If they paid extra for MiG-29SMTs then they would also have to buy expensive guided weapons too.

    The Project 33 was a single engined light 4th gen fighter that was still born because the Russian military at the time didn't want a single engined light fighter and rejected it so it didn't go anywhere.

    I used the word Russian instead of Soviet. Have another drink.

    As far as I know there was a single engine Su-27 concept - the S-55 light fighter - but a single engine Mig-29 concept? Doesn't ring a bell...

    And the single engined Sukhoi was rejected too... because it was a single engined fighter and they weren't interested in a single engined aircraft... fighter or LIFT.

    Not an accident that the Yak-130 and MiG-AT both had two engines... that is what they wanted.

    BTW - I don't "hate" the Mig-35 as you would like to suggest. I just think the design as is, is dated. Not yet obsolete - but dated.

    The concept design is the same age as the Su-27, and the MiG-35 itself is younger and newer than the Su-35.

    Yes I have mentioned upgraded aircraft before - for poorer nations.

    The poorest nation on the planet is the US at 34 trillion in debt, yet it is upgrading F-15s and soon F-16s for service because the F-35 is a joke.


    Unfortunately the current conflict is heating up and is threatening to expand. Russia needs to expand its military with the best possible affordable equipment to defeat the west.

    Which is why a cheaper numbers plane is being put into serial production.

    Obviously the ideal situation would be to have a light 5th gen fighter ready for serial production and having passed all its tests and proved its price claims and its operational costs and had all the little bugs worked out be put into serial production but that is not where they are at.

    The only cheaper lighter fighters they have that they can put into quick serial production are the MIG-29M and the MiG-35, and it seems they are going for the more expensive to buy more capable and better equipped model.

    Personally I thought they should have put the MiG-29M into serial production 5 years ago and they would have significant numbers in service now and as the more sophisticated MiG-35 technologies mature and become affordable then upgrade the MiG-29Ms in service to MiG-35 level... the airframes are the same.

    They could even make 200 MiG-29Ms and upgrade 50 of them with MiG-35 equipment, while MiG works on its new light single engined 5th gen fighter, which it can develop all new systems and equipment and put that new 5th gen stuff into the MiG-35s as upgrades too.

    Of course the Russian Air Force might decide the risks of a single engine light fighter are just too great and that twin engined light MiG fighter for carrier use might be used by the RuAF too and the Su-75 might remain an export item only.

    Whoever buys the Su-75 will be getting a good aircraft when it is ready and to boost its export sales Russia might decide that the MiG twin engined light fighter is not for export. The customers might complain a bit but the Su-75 would be a good compliment to any Su-57Es they might buy too and for the prices I don't think they could realistically complain about getting a 5th gen light fighter for the price of the F-35s engine.

    Sukhoi claims the Su-75 can be produced for export for between 25-30 million US$. The more advanced version would probably cost the same for Russian service.

    I don't agree. Generally the profit margin on military stuff is about 4% for Russian companies, while the profit margin for exports can be up to 30%.

    If the Russian AF bought them they would buy them with all the extras and probably a few extras that other countries don't get the option to buy, like tactical nuclear weapon delivery systems and that might lead to the aircraft costing maybe 30 million, with the export models probably 20-25 million if the RuAF wanted them like that.

    Of course having said that for countries that want to assemble them for themselves you will need to add the cost of factories and production which will likely add 5 million to the price of each aircraft, and of course there will be some countries who want to add their own fillings from Israeli or French makers too, which is going to drive up costs as well.

    Complaints about how expensive upgraded Su-30MKIs were seemed to result in checks that showed 75% of the cost was non Russian parts, including Israeli, French and Indian parts making it more expensive and more complicated to support.

    But they got the plane they wanted.

    The Mig-35's unit price is given at a tear jerking 48+ million US$!

    The Export price, and considering Rafales and F-16s sell for half a dozen times more than that and they essentially do the same thing...

    Operational costs are supposed to be a quarter what the Su-35 costs per hour... which is significantly cheaper than most foreign aircraft cost too.

    No wonder the Russian bought only 6 out of a planned 36. Same goes for the Egyptians who dropped the Mig-35 and opted for double the number Mig-29M's.

    Russia bought 6 for evaluation and testing. Egypt wanted AESA radar and when that was not ready yet they decided to save money with an aircraft that is rather good anyway, but does lack the bells and whistles of the more expensive aircraft.

    There are lots of air forces around the world that don't need huge heavy expensive fighter aircraft.

    This site lists the top ten most expensive planes to buy:

    https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/27553-top-10-most-expensive-fighter-jets

    Not sure about their numbers though because the F-22 is not for sale and if Rafales were $115 million then why did 36 of them cost India 8.4 billion not that long ago?

    The Indians essentially paid twice that... $230 million per aircraft for 36...

    Amusing Russian planes don't appear on that list, though the MiG-31 wont be a cheap plane and its operating costs wont be tiny either.


    What are you trying to say? Do you think the Russians should rather invest in a more expensive 4th gen fighter than a cheaper 5th gen?
    Thank goodness you're not the new Minister of Defense!

    If they have ended their policy of no single engined aircraft then it makes more sense to have a real competition but in the mean time a stopgap solution makes sense.

    The MiG-35 was never designed to replace the Su-35 or Su-30 and was intended to operate with them, performing roles that don't need a huge fighter.

    An A-50 spots a target 200km away and so Russia needs a plane to launch an R-37M to hit the target... a MiG-35 can do that just as well as an Su-35 could, but it could do it cheaper... both would simply zoom climb and accelerate to supersonic speed and launch their missile, job done. The A-50 can communicate with the missile all the way to the target... the launch aircraft can head back to base job done.

    Russia needs a numbers plane that is decent and can be produced in numbers to fill out their fleet to help deal with large numbers of threats.

    One Su-35 can carry 12 missiles and has good radar and good flight range, but three MiG-35s has 24 missiles and three fuel tanks and three radars and three IRSTs and can be in three places at once and probably cost the same as that Su-35 to operate.

    And the MiG-35 is ready for serial production and should be able to start production before the Su-75 has even flown for the first time.

    Thank goodness you're not the new Minister of Defense!

    It is not rocket science to say the 4th gen light fighter is ready to put into serial production vs a plane that has not flown yet that isn't ready for serial production and if you put it into serial production you will effect the production of Su-57s and Su-35s and Su-30s (which are two seat Su-35s now) is an obvious choice.

    The MiG-35 is a good aircraft as a light fighter and will remain good for some time to come with upgrades and improved technology developed for 5th gen light fighters that will eventually supplement it.

    The concept of a light fighter is a cheap, easy to mass produce cheap to operate aircraft... the F-35 is none of those and we really don't know if the Su-75 or any of the new MiG-5th gen aircraft can be stealthy and cheap to operate.

    They might need special treatment and special nano coatings that take time and are not cheap... the new single engine might not cope well with ingesting birds and small drones flying around at low altitudes so a twin engined aircraft might be a necessity.


    Last edited by GarryB on Sat Jun 22, 2024 5:21 am; edited 1 time in total

    Rodion_Romanovic likes this post

    marcellogo
    marcellogo


    Posts : 659
    Points : 665
    Join date : 2012-08-02
    Age : 55
    Location : Italy

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 40 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  marcellogo Sat Jun 22, 2024 5:17 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Even as "dated", it's still useful enough to be modernized.
    All those MiG-21/F-7, F-4/5/14/15/16/18, Mirages, Su-24/25/27/30 r also dated but been upgraded & used for decades in many AFs.

    But MiG-35 is not a greatly modernized MiG-29S, it's a plane that have to be built from scratch.
    Same reason they just produced just an handful of Su-25T and instead modernized their already made Grach to SM, and successively SM3 standard.

    GarryB, Rodion_Romanovic, Gomig-21, Mir and Broski like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39648
    Points : 40144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 40 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  GarryB Sat Jun 22, 2024 5:27 am

    The difference between the original MiG-29M and the MiG-29 was that the MiG-29M had a sealed skin.

    If you wanted to store fuel in a compartment in a MiG-29 you had to put a fuel tank in it or a fuel bladder to store the fuel which adds weight.

    With the MiG-29M (original) each compartment is sealed so you can fill it up with fuel to add fuel capacity without massively increasing weight, though obvously you would need the pipes to transfer fuel around the place and eventually get it to the engines.

    The new MiG-29M is a new design... you can tell because the new MiG-29 and MiG-29K and MiG-35 have two seat cockpit canopies but can be single or twin seat configuration with full sized radar and full capabilities.

    The original MiG-29M was a single seat aircraft only.

    Not only are the new aircraft new designs but all the contents are upgraded and improved and not any older than anything put in the Su-35s currently in service.

    Tsavo Lion likes this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3499
    Points : 3501
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 40 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Mir Sat Jun 22, 2024 6:02 am

    marcellogo wrote:
    But MiG-35 is not a greatly modernized MiG-29S, it's a plane that have to be built from scratch.

    It was developed from the Mig-29M which made a comeback decades later in the form of the Mig-29M2. The Mig-35 use the same airframe as the Mig-29M2.

    Tsavo Lion likes this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3499
    Points : 3501
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 40 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Mir Sat Jun 22, 2024 6:11 am

    GarryB wrote:Hahaha... have you not been paying attention?
    Ukrainian MiG-29s and Su-27s and Su-25s all seem to be getting shot down.

    Anything can get shot down - even 5th gen fighters. But that really is not the point here at all.

    Mir wrote:
    It has been officially stated that several prototypes of the Su-75 are already under construction - so no it's not vapourware at all.
    GarryB' wrote:Until it actually flys it is not a plane yet.

    Now that's copium for you!

    GarryB wrote:  (the Project 33) was rejected by the Soviet military because they were not interested in single engined fighters.

    Yet they produced the Su-17 until 1990? Again the decision to drop single engine fighters was only taken in the early 90's - by the Russian government and not the Soviets.

    [quote="GarryB"] Well that is funny because the MiG-29s and Su-27s they had in service right through to the 2000s were not multirole at all [/qoute]

    Yes that's funny because both the Mig-29 and the Su-27 designs dates back to the 70's - and were designed as air superiority fighters. As I've said - the Mig-29M and the Su-27M of the 80's was designed as multi-role fighters.

    GarryB wrote: And the single engined Sukhoi was rejected too... because it was a single engined fighter and they weren't interested in a single engined aircraft... fighter or LIFT.

    So what happened to the supposedly single engine Mig-29? Still haven't seen anything?

    GarryB wrote:The concept design is the same age as the Su-27, and the MiG-35 itself is younger and newer than the Su-35

    Exactly and that is why the Russians should invest in the Su-57/75 combo and not go backwards as both the Mig-35 and the Su-35 designs are dated. Not obsolete - but dated.

    GarryB wrote:Russia bought 6 (Mig-35's)for evaluation and testing.

    No. They actually ordered 37, but very soon that order was cut to 24 and then to a measly 6 (half a squadron). Egypt wanted 24 Mig-35's but they soon realized they could buy 46 Mig-29M's that are virtually the same for much cheaper. Clever going I'd say!

    India as a potentially huge customer, was also interested but found some serious issues with the avionics and the RD-33MK engine could not produce the thrust as advertised.

    Honestly Mikoyan has not designed a new fighter aircraft in over two decades - heavily draining government resources through salaries for people that can't design anything new. In fact I think they have run out of actual aircraft designers. Even the "new" trainer is a mix between the Mig-AT of the 80's and the Yak-30 from the 60's.

    Broski likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39648
    Points : 40144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 40 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  GarryB Sat Jun 22, 2024 7:33 am

    It was developed from the Mig-29M which made a comeback decades later in the form of the Mig-29M2. The Mig-35 use the same airframe as the Mig-29M2.

    The original MiG-29M with the single seat canopy was a complete redesign of the MIG-29 that made it lighter and increased the potential volume for fuel storage.

    The current MiG-29M2/MiG-29KR/MiG-35 is a further upgrade of the airframe design.

    The new airframe design is shared across all three new versions of the aircraft and the fillings are cheap, naval, and the best they can make at the time respectively.

    You buy the one you want.

    I thought that from an Indian perspective the MiG-29M would make sense as a numbers aircraft and 36 Rafales to replace the Mirage 2000s, but they are too expensive so buying 250 MiG-29Ms and 50 further MiG-35s would give them the best of both worlds.

    Over time the equipment in the MiG-29Ms could be upgraded to MiG-35 standard and eventually you end up with 300 MiG-35s... or you might keep 100 or 200 MiG-29Ms because they are cheaper and still get the job done.

    They are both fully multirole and can replace the MiG-27s and Jaguars and MiG-21s in the strike and fighter roles.

    Anything can get shot down - even 5th gen fighters. But that really is not the point here at all.

    Which is why having larger numbers of aircraft makes sense as it allows you to absorb losses better and gives you better sensor coverage of the battlefield.


    Now that's copium for you!

    Copium has nothing to do with it... even if we assume Sukhoi get it right and it is all that it is cracked up to be it can't be put into serial production within the next 5 to 8 years and when it does go into production it will be made in factories currently making Su-34s and Su-35s and Su-57s... which do you want to cut to get that into production?


    Yet they produced the Su-17 until 1990?

    It remained in production is not the same as cancelling a project.

    They had production capacity yet it had already proven inferior in the light strike role to the Su-25... so they kept making it for a while after it could be considered obsolete.

    Again the decision to drop single engine fighters was only taken in the early 90's - by the Russian government and not the Soviets.

    You said yourself the Project 33 from MiG was cancelled by the Soviets in the 1980s.

    They had MiG-29s with two engines and Su-27s with two engines and they were happy with that. MiG started to make a new single engined light fighter and in that period it would have been multirole eventually, and they couldn't get funding... it was cancelled because the Soviet air force didn't want it... not even as a replacement for the single engined Su-17 it seems.

    I said "Well that is funny because the MiG-29s and Su-27s they had in service right through to the 2000s were not multirole at all "

    and you said:
    Yes that's funny because both the Mig-29 and the Su-27 designs dates back to the 70's - and were designed as air superiority fighters. As I've said - the Mig-29M and the Su-27M of the 80's was designed as multi-role fighters.

    You say they worked on upgrades of both aircraft in the 1980s to upgrade them to multirole, but neither upgrade was adopted and put in service. The closest the MiG got to multirole were the S models that could even carry R-77s but didn't.

    What I said is right and what you said is right, there is no contradiction... the MiG-29s and Su-27s didn't get the multirole upgrades till the 2000s, multirole upgrades developed in the 1980s didn't get into service in the Soviet or Russian Airforces till the 2000s.

    The design bureaus were making multrole upgrades but the Russian Air Force wasn't interested in actually buying them till the 2000s.

    Most of the work wasn't wasted of course because much of it eventually got into the Su-35 and MiG-35...

    So what happened to the supposedly single engine Mig-29? Still haven't seen anything?

    Project 33 is about as close as you could get to a single engined MiG-29:

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 40 Izd_3312

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 40 Model_11

    Exactly and that is why the Russians should invest in the Su-57/75 combo and not go backwards as both the Mig-35 and the Su-35 designs are dated. Not obsolete - but dated.

    And have a ten year gap waiting for the Su-75 or the MiG alternative to get ready for serial production?

    Plus the obvious question... are you such a western consumer bitch that you have seen the ad and you want the product and don't need it to be tested or compared to any other model that might be competing?

    Maybe that Yak-130 AESA radar is for a stealthy Yak-133 single seat fighter from Yakovlev that might compete for the same job?

    Yak have some very interesting single engine designs they have shown models of.

    MiG clearly has ideas too.

    Are we going to ignore them all and just go with Sukhoi.

    How is that a good idea... the contract goes to the company with the best adverts... the winner is the F-35...

    No. They actually ordered 37, but very soon that order was cut to 24 and then to a measly 6 (half a squadron).

    The technology in the MiG-35 is a different level from the technology in the MiG-29M and will not be cheap to get working... would assume they decided to just make 6 and get everything working. Hand making 6 AESA radars is easier and cheaper than making 36 and for the years they have had them they have had time to improve the technology and work out the production bugs ready for serial production.

    Honestly Mikoyan has not designed a new fighter aircraft in over two decades - heavily draining government resources through salaries for people that can't design anything new. In fact I think they have run out of actual aircraft designers.

    Again this hate for MiG. Did he steal your girlfriend or soil your daughters honour?

    Europe hasn't designed a new fighter in two decades either and the ones they have are horribly expensive.

    The first Euro Typhoons are now being scrapped despite their first flight in 1996 and entering service in 2003... so 20 year old designs are being scrapped because it is cheaper to make new planes than to upgrade the first made planes...

    Even the "new" trainer is a mix between the Mig-AT of the 80's and the Yak-30 from the 60's.

    Don't forget the tires... wheels were invented thousands of years ago... stupid MiG engineers... stupid stupid heads... Twisted Evil

    South Africa has Gripens and Hawks... wonder how long before spare parts become hard to come by because you are in BRICS and are friends with Russia and China...

    Gripen is a light cheap fighter isn't it... wonder what they might buy to replace it... Wink

    Rodion_Romanovic and Tsavo Lion like this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3499
    Points : 3501
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 40 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Mir Sat Jun 22, 2024 8:12 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Project 33 is about as close as you could get to a single engined MiG-29:

    The design was inspired and based on the F-16. So there was no single engine Mig-29 as you suggested?

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 40 Izd_3312

    Mir wrote: Honestly Mikoyan has not designed a new fighter aircraft in over two decades - heavily draining government resources through salaries for people that can't design anything new. In fact I think they have run out of actual aircraft designers.

    GarryB wrote:Again this hate for MiG.

    No hate at all. I have stated here that the Mig-29M of old is one of my favorite Migs. The Mig31 being my top choice.
    I am just telling it as it is - no fantasy world involved.

    GarryB wrote: South Africa has Gripens and Hawks... wonder how long before spare parts become hard to come by because you are in BRICS and are friends with Russia and China...

    Those were crooked and very expensive deals to start with and they are struggling to keep them in the air due to lack of funds. When the time comes to replace them, they would likely opt for either Russian or Chinese options.

    Sponsored content


    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 40 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Jul 23, 2024 8:03 pm