MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

Ever since that video from Syria Russian media has been fond of that shot. Kinda risky with so much wind and such a light aircraft.

Isos wrote:The extra weight over mig-29 has clearly an impact on the maniability.

What extra weight and what effect?

They should have improved engines or made the fighter a little bgger to put bigger ones.

Ok, let's make it bigger so it weights more and negates the effect of the bigger engines we want to put on it  but don't have in production. Unless you want to make it a Flanker

The fuel tank is also awfull. It's a big draggy pod.

Brave statement. Do you think, in few words, they cannot design an EFT and you have catched them just by looks of things?

They could have put an internal tank between the engine that wouldn't impact on the aerodynamics of the plane.

What size of tank you talk about?

BTW. MiG-35 bigger than MiG-29? And what are those production units of the 35? Are we talking about the same plane at all?
Slat at the LERX is indeed curious. Maybe this belongs to the ongoing tests, as GarryB points out, the seem to me detrimental to the formation of the same vortexes the LERX is there to create...

@GarryB:
those seem indeed wing foldings. They are also visible at the Rosoboronexport page... curious!

Comformal fuel tanks or saddle tanks are probably by far best solution to lessen effects of drag, increased RCS and unwanted increase in fuel consumption as final result. Aside of hump that was installed on Mig-29 UPG/SMTs there are no comformal fuel tanks in USSR-Russian designs. Reasons they used to explain why were mostly...unusual to say at least. So they still use PTB fuel tanks, certain types of which are even limited to use at subsonic speeds. PAZ-MK tho was abit better thought out, we might see some new tanks in future, maybe even with some work on reduced RCS too.

Militarov wrote:Comformal fuel tanks or saddle tanks are probably by far best solution to lessen effects of drag, increased RCS and unwanted increase in fuel consumption as final result. Aside of hump that was installed on Mig-29 UPG/SMTs there are no comformal fuel tanks in USSR-Russian designs. Reasons they used to explain why were mostly...unusual to say at least. So they still use PTB fuel tanks, certain types of which are even limited to use at subsonic speeds. PAZ-MK tho was abit better thought out, we might see some new tanks in future, maybe even with some work on reduced RCS too.

They don't use CFTs because most of their planes are intrinsically long ranged, so they don't have the need of external fuel to start with. MiG29/35 could be a plane that could use them but then, they already have heavy fighters when range is really needed. So they leave US occupy themselves with such issues and they continue designing long range heavy fighters instead, which is the most intelligent solution.

BTW, it is interesting to consider the remaining payload of most Western designs available in real-life missions once the weight of EFTs/CFTs is discounted.

Hole wrote:The flap at the LERX is a sort of Kruger flap. More lift. Lower stall speed.

Yeah maybe you are right and they are there for lift improvement, it would make more sense. Did you see them before on the MiGs? Nevertheless deploying them at low AoA is strange to me.

Isos wrote:Mig 29 : Loaded weight: 14,900 kg (33,730 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 18,000 kg (44,100 lb)

Mig-35 : Loaded weight: 17,500 kg (38,600 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 29,700 kg (65,500 lb)

With engines only 6% more powerfull T/W is smaller for mig-35.

Official data for MiG-35 is MTOW 23500 kg, no normal weight provided. If you use data from Wiki, it would be more honest to quote also empty weight which at 11000 kg is the same stated for regular MiG-29.

In any case if fuel capacity is increased and also payload, we are not talking about worsening characteristics but exactly the opposite. Without knowing empty weight this comparison cannot be done.

Talk as long as you want, it won't change the fact that this fuel tank is producing drag like a if you mounted a car under the plane.

If you just had expressed an opinion it would be fair, an absolute statement like that is what will not fly with me and probably many others.

Well looking how big this one is I assume they could build a pretty big one that will provide as much fuel as the uggly one but with better aerodynamics thus providing even more range since it won't produce drag.

More cross sectional area without increase in drag? That would be interesting to see

Range was an issue for exporting mig-29. And mig-35 is supposed to be an export fighter.

Internal fuel has been massively increased from the original MiG-29. Now stated range without EFTs is 2000 km, which to me is quite decent for a fighter of that size.

And mig engineerstgink that it is not that much helpfull since ot really works at low speeds. That why they don't put them in serial production mig-35.

The ability to point your nose and therefore also your primary sensors and weapons at a target makes sense.

Of course having high offboresight missiles and helmet mounted sights means close in manouver performance is not super critical...

T/W is the key for a good manoevrability and since mig 35 is much bigger than mig-29 with engines only 6% more powerfull means manoevrability should be worse than basic mig-29.

Sensors and weapons are much better and it is rather less likely to need to get into a turning fight with an enemy aircraft.

The MiG-35 is not much bigger than a MiG-29.

And according to MiG the 35 is almost 2.5 times cheaper to operate than the 29.

The 35 will have TVC and AESA.

I suggested a little bit bigger not two times bigger. Something like few cm in width and 1m in length to allow bigger engines and more fuel.

What bigger engines and why more fuel?

If they keep engines and fuel capacity of the light mig-29 it's gonna be a bad fighter.

The fuel capacity of WHICH MiG-29?

MiG-29A? MiG-29SMT?

It doesn't need to be such draggy box. Look at western fuel tanks, they are much more earodynamic.

Western fuel tanks are gay.

What makes you think this fuel tank is not aerodynamic?

It is clearly designed for maximum capacity in the space available... that is a good thing.

What's the point of carrying more fuel in a tank that will make you use much more fuel because of drag ?

It is a design decision... you can make all the fuel for any mission the aircraft could perform internal... it means a bigger, heavier slower more expensive machine that can never improve performance by dropping that external tank. Or they can make the plane smaller and lighter and more aerodynamic and carry an external fuel tank when extra range is needed.

It can also carry two 2,000 liter underwing tanks too if it needs to...

Internal flat tank between the engines won't impact manoeurability. Using all the length will make it more flat.

WOW... you bloody genius... you mean they can put fuel inside the aircraft... that is god damned amazing... a MiG-29 with extra fuel inside it... what could they call that? .... well it is going to be super... so they need an S... and it is an upgrade so they need an M in the designation and the word for fuel in Russian starts with a T... so they should call it MiG-29SMT maybe? Except that is an upgrade that can be applied to a standard MiG-29 without making it wider or longer... but it does make it heavier and reduce its performance like you already complained about the MiG-35...

So the MiG-35 is crap but your solution is going to make it more crap by your own definition..... Yay... I am guessing you will get the contract...

Like imagine something like su-57's weapon bays but full of fuel between the mig-35 engines. Not a bad idea IMO.

Serious increase in weight and drag...

Maybe this belongs to the ongoing tests, as GarryB points out, the seem to me detrimental to the formation of the same vortexes the LERX is there to create...

But while the vortexes are useful at high angles of attack as it makes the vertical tails more effective, in level flight it might just induce more drag, so moving the vortexes forward might improve flight performance...

those seem indeed wing foldings. They are also visible at the Rosoboronexport page... curious!

They said they were unifying the design into the cheap (MiG-29M2) and the expensive and more capable (MiG-35), so the MiG-29KR presumably is no longer a separate choice... perhaps both the M2 and 35 will have folding wings and be carrier compatible or they might not bother with the M2 with folding wings to keep its costs down as a budget model.

Mig-29 UPG/SMTs there are no comformal fuel tanks in USSR-Russian designs.

MiG-21SMT... and the Kh-55SM...

Mig 29 : Loaded weight: 14,900 kg (33,730 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 18,000 kg (44,100 lb)

The MiG-29B model from the mid 1980s... with 8.3 ton thrust engines.

MiG-29SMT: normal weight: 17 tons (17,000kgs), MTOW: 22 tons (22,000kgs) with 8.3 ton thrust engines.

So the MiG-29SMT is already inferior to the MiG-29B...

Mig-35 : Loaded weight: 17,500 kg (38,600 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 29,700 kg (65,500 lb)

So the MiG-35 is 500kgs heavier than the SMT model MiG-29 at normal operating weights but has 9.3 ton thrust engines... half a ton extra weight and two tons extra thrust... sounds like an improvement to me.

Talk as long as you want, it won't change the fact that this fuel tank is producing drag like a if you mounted a car under the plane.

At subsonic speeds it would make little difference in performance... look at those awful conformal tanks on the F-16... how much drag to they generate... like boxing wearing a heavy coat...

Range was an issue for exporting mig-29. And mig-35 is supposed to be an export fighter.

Have you heard about inflight refuelling?

Note my figures come from MiG:

http://www.migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/the-mig-29-fighters-family/mig-29smt-mig-29ub-upgraded?limit=1&start=2

More cross sectional area without increase in drag? That would be interesting to see

Yeah... magic like in the west... what they do is they make an external fuel tank so sleek and aerodynamic that it improves the performance of the aircraft so while it is too small to actually hold any extra fuel it actually increases the range of the aircraft by making it more aerodynamic...

It is like putting fluffy dice on your car mirror... you just go faster...

The flap at the LERX is a sort of Kruger flap. More lift. Lower stall speed.

Yes thats the one!  
I knew it was one of those named types but my googlefu failed  
Also apparently not quite as archaic as I thought, Boeing has used them on the thicker inboard sections of 747 & some other airliners.

I've found pics with them on MiG-29K & these are MiG-35 but didn't find any pics on earlier MiG-29 variants, presumably its a part of the Navalisation of the 29K carried over to 35.

Well looking how big this one is I assume they could build a pretty big one that will provide as much fuel as the uggly one but with better aerodynamics thus providing even more range since it won't produce drag.

I agree, a conformal tank filling the area between the engine pods should provide a lower drag solution than the big conventional type droptank we see here.

I was talking about manoeuvrability being impacted by increase of weight while engines were 6% more powerfull. Never said the plane became a shit compare to mig-29.

Actually the MiG-29SMT is rather more manouverable than the MiG-29B as it has a much more sophisticated flight control system and the MiG-35 is 500kgs or half a ton heavier with two tons extra thrust from its two engines, so in fact the MiG-35 will have better manouver performance than the best model MiG-29SMT... the only MiG-29 with better manouver performance would be the MiG-29OVT which was a test prototype that did not enter service but was used to develop thrust vectoring engines.

The fuel tank is draggy. It is a fact not my opinion.

All fuel tanks are draggy you dick... that is why they are called DROP tanks.

My opinion is what follows. If you want to carry some fuel tank then the new ones under the wing are better adapted while the space between engine could host missiles. But IMO an internal or conformal fuel tank between engine would be the best.

Now you are just being an AHole... it practically fills the gap between the engines so it already practically is a conformal tank... are you trying to wind people up on purpose?

The MiG-35’s strike radius is 1,000 km (620 miles), and it has a trick to stay in air for twice as long as previous generation fighters – if the second pilot’s seat is replaced with an extra fuel tank. ..
The aircraft, which is expected to enter into service by 2020 and replace previous generation jets in the Russian Air Force, is already in high demand across the world. As of November 2017, some 30 nations were ready to upgrade their ageing warplanes with the new Russian multirole jets. https://www.rt.com/news/446289-russia-mig-35-fighter-jet-video/?utm_source=miximedia&utm_medium=miximedia&utm_campaign=Miximedia&utm_source=miximedia&utm_medium=miximedia&utm_campaign=Miximedia

We'll see about the export orders.

GarryB wrote:Of course having high offboresight missiles and helmet mounted sights means close in manouver performance is not super critical...

This is one of the urban legends about military that the more you hear, the more you think are crap, pretty much like STOBAR not being capable of using planes with full load. Where are the numbers behind such assertions that journos spread so lightly? A missile pointed to the rear of a plane in direct line will reach its target way faster and with more probability to hit than one that needs to turn 180º to first of all find the supposed target. Agility is still relevant. Merges will happen... they happened even in Gulf War with overwhelming US air superiority so imagine against a peer rival with advanced ECM capabilities like Russia. Poor excuses to pretend that Russia cannot compete in BVR for some stupid reason.

The MiG-35 is not much bigger than a MiG-29.

Where is the proof it is bigger at all???

It is clearly designed for maximum capacity in the space available... that is a good thing.

Maybe only thought for subsonic flight.

But while the vortexes are useful at high angles of attack as it makes the vertical tails more effective, in level flight it might just induce more drag, so moving the vortexes forward might improve flight performance...

LERX increases lift of the wing at all AoA through the formation of vortexes that improve the airflow over the wing
To me, the strange flap or add-on in the pictures would be useful at increased AoA in order to ease the boundary layer to stick to the lifting body but not really in level flight...

They said they were unifying the design into the cheap (MiG-29M2) and the expensive and more capable (MiG-35), so the MiG-29KR presumably is no longer a separate choice... perhaps both the M2 and 35 will have folding wings and be carrier compatible or they might not bother with the M2 with folding wings to keep its costs down as a budget model.

Yeah, something seems to be going on in this regard. The pictures from the MiG-35 presentation seem to show the same wing fold, separate leading edge slats and still 4 pylons per wing. And specs of MiG-35 are still +9 g. Maybe the wing has similar finishing / mechanization for both wings with and w/o fold to save costs...

So the MiG-35 is 500kgs heavier than the SMT model MiG-29 at normal operating weights but has 9.3 ton thrust engines... half a ton extra weight and two tons extra thrust... sounds like an improvement to me.

No proof about that weight increase. The same sources claim same empty weight for MiG-35 than MiG-29.

Yeah... magic like in the west... what they do is they make an external fuel tank so sleek and aerodynamic that it improves the performance of the aircraft so while it is too small to actually hold any extra fuel it actually increases the range of the aircraft by making it more aerodynamic...

It is like putting fluffy dice on your car mirror... you just go faster...

Selling the workaround as an advantage, if you boast enough people may not even realize you screwed it up in the first place by making the plane with too little internal fuel so it would look agile... typical Western cheek.

Isos wrote:Conformal fuel tank were made specially because they reduced drag drastically.

Their Cd can be lower than that of other tanks, but they increase the frontal area so the total drag (composed of both factors) is going to increase compared to the clean aircraft

Once empty their weight isn't a problem.

Have you actually taken a look at the weight of existing CFTs? 900 lb dead weight in the F-16 are not a problem?

CFTs are much more expensive and complex to install than EFTs so they cannot be jettisoned. They are a solution for planes that were designed with too low internal fuel, but have the same drawbacks of a design with high internal fuel (drag and weight you cannot get rid of) only augmented due to limitations of retrofitable solutions and with a nice extra cost added to it.

As said Russians have already lots of multirole fighters with internal fuel for 3500 km, they don't need to get mad to extend a bit the range of the MiG-35.

MiG-29/MiG-35
Legth: 17,32 м/17,32 м  Wing span: 11,36 м/12 м
Height: 4,73 м/4,44 м
Mass  empty: 10900 кg/13500 kg
NTOW: 15180 кg/18500 кg
MTOW: 18480 кg/29700 кg
Max engine thrust: 2 × 8300 кgс/2 × 9000 кgс
Range: 1,430 km (888 mi; 772 nmi) with maximum internal fuel
or 1/2= Combat radius ~715 km /with normal warload: 1,000 км
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%93-29#%D0%A2%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8[148]

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%93-35#%D0%A2%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29#Specifications_(MiG-29)

The MiG-35 has larger wingspan, shorter tail fins, more powerful engines, & longer range.

NTOW: 15180 кg/18500 кg
MTOW: 18480 кg/29700 кg

More than 10ton MTOW increase, 7.9ton increase in payload

..7.9ton increase in payload

Were did that figure came from?

Sure, MTOW increased by 11 tons! Those data are not official, they look crap and probably are.

Were did that figure came from?

Those figures

18480-15180 = 3300kg payload for MiG-29.
29700-18500 = 11200kg payload for MiG-35.

11200-3300 = 7900kg payload increase.

Edit: hmm thats Normal Takeoff not Empty so those numbers aren't actual payload totals but its still 7900kg increase for the MiG-35.

Yes, the NTOW is "Normal" TOW with standard AAM load.
The MTOW includes weight of pilot(s), fuel + weapons payload. To get just the max. weapons payload & sensor pods (warload) figure, the 1st 2 must be subtracted.

There is a difference between this drop tank that looks like a potato bag, a drop tank that looks like a missile and a conformal fuel tank.

Show me a photo of a MiG-29 in operational configuration with a drop tank...

The first models of MiG-29 couldn't even fire their 30mm cannon with the external fuel tank attached because it was never designed to fight with a fuel tank attached.

The Fuel tank for a MiG-29 was for ferrying... normally flying to another airfield where it was going to operate from.

It is supposed to carry extra fuel and the big potato bag look is because it carries quite a bit of fuel.

Drag is not the same for each one. Conformal fuel tank were made specially because they reduced drag drastically. Once empty their weight isn't a problem. Test proved that and almost all f-16 users upgrade them for confirmal tanks use.

Conformal tanks only make sense if you fucked up the aircraft design and didn't allow for enough internal fuel for normal intended operations.

External fuel tanks are expected to be used very occasionally when flight range needs to be extended for a specific mission... if you are always flying with an external fuel tank then you should be using a bigger longer ranged plane.

Conformal tanks reduce the drag compared to conventional tanks but serious reduce flight performance as they do increase drag and MTOW all the time, whereas an external fuel tank does that only when it is carried.

These aircraft likely had them because they were testing and filming.

External fuel tanks normally seriously limit g tolerance performance too... which is also why they are normally dropped in combat situations.

Drag is already increasing fuel consumption for a car driving at 100km/h with roof boxes much more aerodynamic than this shit. What do you think it does to a mig-29 carrying this big potato bag ?

A conformal tank also increases fuel consumption and never comes off so in the longer term has more effect on performance than the rarely used drop tank.

It's nowhere comparable to a conformal tank. It fills the gap but in a wrong way.

A conformal tank that filled the space between the engines would block all air flow.... this does not so it would have less drag than a conformal tank that totally blocked the gap.

A missile pointed to the rear of a plane in direct line will reach its target way faster and with more probability to hit than one that needs to turn 180º to first of all find the supposed target. Agility is still relevant. Merges will happen... they happened even in Gulf War with overwhelming US air superiority so imagine against a peer rival with advanced ECM capabilities like Russia. Poor excuses to pretend that Russia cannot compete in BVR for some stupid reason.

The potency of WVR missiles meant that NATO largely dropped close combat, and focussed on BVR combat with enormous effort being focussed on the otherwise neglected AMRAAM. Compared with the funding and attention the AMRAAM got the ASRAAM was almost totally neglected because the ability of the MiG-29 with R-73 meant that even if the ASRAAM worked as advertised it was likely by the time the MiG was hit he would have already fired the missile that was probably going to kill you.

Acceleration and climb speed means you can rapidly gain energy before a long range missile launch to give your missile more energy and a better chance against an enemy aircraft, but the days of turning hard and trying to outrun the target tracking capacity of a missile are long gone.

62% of the time in dogfight simulations the F-16 got on the tail of the MiG-29B, but 100% of the time it was deemed the MiG had already launched its R-73 from a position where more likely than not he would have gotten a kill.

The MiG-29B was pretty much the worst version of the MiG-29 in terms of manouver performance and weapons... it could only carry the R-27R and R-73 and R-60.

It couldn't even use the IR models of the R-27T or ET... the two seat model could.

Where is the proof it is bigger at all???

The wings are bigger... they are from the MiG-29KR which has bigger wings and larger control surfaces to improve low speed flight performance.

Maybe only thought for subsonic flight.

Very few aircraft can break the sound barrier with external fuel tanks.

Which again is why they are generally used for ferrying and not for combat.

Have you actually taken a look at the weight of existing CFTs? 900 lb dead weight in the F-16 are not a problem?

And the extra drag remains because they can't be ditched.

Yes, the NTOW is "Normal" TOW with standard AAM load.
The MTOW includes weight of pilot(s), fuel + weapons payload. To get just the max. weapons payload & sensor pods (warload) figure, the 1st 2 must be subtracted.

Normal take off does not always include full fuel weight... it might have a 3/4s fuel load and an AAM armament which is usually around 2-3 tons at the very most of weapons.

MTOW normally require 2 ton external fuel tanks and a bomb load and full fuel tanks.

Somebody that speaks Russian can maybe summarize the main points of interest commented in the video? Youtube translator is not making the best job here

GarryB wrote:The potency of WVR missiles meant that NATO largely dropped close combat, and focussed on BVR combat with enormous effort being focussed on the otherwise neglected AMRAAM.

After losing so many planes over Vietnam and given US rejection of attrition is understandable to try to avoid dogfights, but it has never worked as advertised, for the simple reason that fighter planes devour distances extremely fast. Encounters many vs. many are going to end up in a merge more often than not.
On the other hand, Pk of short range missiles is far from 1 and with DIRCM this will only get worse. Still have to see a serious analysis about high off-bore sight missiles eliminating the need for manoeuvrability.

Acceleration and climb speed means you can rapidly gain energy before a long range missile launch to give your missile more energy and a better chance against an enemy aircraft, but the days of turning hard and trying to outrun the target tracking capacity of a missile are long gone.

New AESA seeker on R-77 is precisely trying to avoid the missile losing the lock due to hard manoeuvring during end game so the problem still exists, apparently... Newer fighters have expanded flight envelopes too.

The wings are bigger... they are from the MiG-29KR which has bigger wings and larger control surfaces to improve low speed flight performance.

Yeah, wings and elevators are bigger, but that is to allow for better handling characteristics and increased fuel and weapons carrying capability. The fuselage itself is using the space better (more fuel available) but remains essentially the same. Composites are used now so it is perfectly possible that the weight of the airframe is same or even lower than before with increased life and robustness.


BTW, I cannot believe we are discussing about data that claim 11 tons bigger MTOW for the MiG-35 than for the MiG-29. It has 50% more fuel and 6500 kg max payload, that does not mean it has become a heavy fighter. There has been no increase in the size of the airframe like in F-18 from C to E version.