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.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
