5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_LMFS

I remember an interview with the director of UAC which stated that the Mig plan for a light 5th gen fighter was well developed but that they would wait till the T-50 was ready for production before further work so that work on the light 5th gen fighter didn't interfere with the main 5th gen fighter for Russia.

Hopefully its cost can be minimised to the point where it can be bought in significant numbers by the Russian AF so that older non-stealthy aircraft can be replaced sooner.

The Mig-21 was all about speed in a small and light package.

This new fighter needs to be stealthy, but it also needs to be a jack of all trades with the ability to fight air and ground targets at one time with a wide range of types of modern ordinance yet be cheap to operate and support.

A single engine type would be preferred.

GarryB wrote:I remember an interview with the director of UAC which stated that the Mig plan for a light 5th gen fighter was well developed but that they would wait till the T-50 was ready for production before further work so that work on the light 5th gen fighter didn't interfere with the main 5th gen fighter for Russia.

Hopefully its cost can be minimised to the point where it can be bought in significant numbers by the Russian AF so that older non-stealthy aircraft can be replaced sooner.

The Mig-21 was all about speed in a small and light package.

This new fighter needs to be stealthy, but it also needs to be a jack of all trades with the ability to fight air and ground targets at one time with a wide range of types of modern ordinance yet be cheap to operate and support.

A single engine type would be preferred.

Any news on that project?

There is talk that money is still in the Air Forces budget for Mig-35s which will be good for MiG... and the Air Force.

It will at the same time show confidence in MiG, but also show there is room in the Air Force for smaller "numbers" planes.

I would think in the longer term the role of smaller cheaper numbers planes will be taken by UCAVs, but it will take time for these to mature.

GarryB wrote:
I would think in the longer term the role of smaller cheaper numbers planes will be taken by UCAVs, but it will take time for these to mature.

Then why USA produced the expensive F-35?

Because they have huge number of conventional fighters to replace in service and 189 F-22s simply wont do that job.

They need a numbers plane and UCAV fighters are simply not mature enough for the role even in the west.

The problem the US has is that the F-15 is out of production and the F-16 in all its wonderful variants is hard pushed to be comparable to the Su-35 which is new build stuff.

Even the F-35 falls short of the Su-35 in many areas, but its key ingredient is its stealth, which the USAF is relying on to give it the edge.

Will be interesting to see how much an F-35 costs, and how much a PAK FA costs...

Export costs will also be interesting.

Recently the UK admitted to spying on Russia using a device hidden in a rock about 6 years ago.
The spying in itself is not strange but they denied it vigorously at the time because there was an agreement between Russia and the UK not to spy on each other.
I remember Blair shrugged off the allegations as being "silly", but now it is clear he stone faced lied.

The question is why would they come clean now?

Are they actually realising that a closer relationship with Russia might actually be a good thing for them and if they keep treating Russia as the enemy then they will not make any profit while others are cashing in?

The British oil company BP had a falling out with the Russian oil companies for contracts for oil drilling in the cold north of the country... and US companies jumped in and signed up contracts pretty rapidly.

Who knows... maybe they are begining to realise the EU ship is not so safe and secure and that a good relationship with Russia might help save the EU, and put the UK in a better position that it will get hanging off Americas shirttails.

Perhaps in 20 years time their might be a PAK FA with French electronics and British engines and other components on British and French carriers because it costs $80million compared with $200 million for an F-35 plus a 5 year wait and downgraded export stealth and avionics...

GarryB wrote:Because they have huge number of conventional fighters to replace in service and 189 F-22s simply wont do that job.

They need a numbers plane and UCAV fighters are simply not mature enough for the role even in the west.

The problem the US has is that the F-15 is out of production and the F-16 in all its wonderful variants is hard pushed to be comparable to the Su-35 which is new build stuff.

Even the F-35 falls short of the Su-35 in many areas, but its key ingredient is its stealth, which the USAF is relying on to give it the edge.

Will be interesting to see how much an F-35 costs, and how much a PAK FA costs...

Export costs will also be interesting.

Recently the UK admitted to spying on Russia using a device hidden in a rock about 6 years ago.
The spying in itself is not strange but they denied it vigorously at the time because there was an agreement between Russia and the UK not to spy on each other.
I remember Blair shrugged off the allegations as being "silly", but now it is clear he stone faced lied.

The question is why would they come clean now?

Are they actually realising that a closer relationship with Russia might actually be a good thing for them and if they keep treating Russia as the enemy then they will not make any profit while others are cashing in?

The British oil company BP had a falling out with the Russian oil companies for contracts for oil drilling in the cold north of the country... and US companies jumped in and signed up contracts pretty rapidly.

Who knows... maybe they are begining to realise the EU ship is not so safe and secure and that a good relationship with Russia might help save the EU, and put the UK in a better position that it will get hanging off Americas shirttails.

Perhaps in 20 years time their might be a PAK FA with French electronics and British engines and other components on British and French carriers because it costs $80million compared with $200 million for an F-35 plus a 5 year wait and downgraded export stealth and avionics...

U think that Russian air force doesn't need a light multirole fighter as complement to PAK-FA?

It does (IMO), but we won't see anything until past 2020 at the earliest.

U think that Russian air force doesn't need a light multirole fighter as complement to PAK-FA?

Yes, I do.

But the urgency to develop and get one into service for Russia is nothing like it is for the west... in particular the US as the F-16 and F15 are getting a little long in the tooth. In Europe it is the Mirage 2000s and Tornados that will be replaced first by the F-35.

Right now for Russia it makes more sense to produce Mig-35s and Su-35s and with that money spent in those companies they can work on a new light 5th gen fighter and the heavy 5th gen fighter respectively.

The advantage of building your planes second is that even if you are behind in electronics it gives you a change to look at the enemy product and look at their experience and work out what is useful and what isn't.

A good example of that is the Flanker was clearly designed as a counter to the Eagle.
The Eagle came out with external conformal fuel tanks to increase range and performance without using up weapon pylons for external tanks.
The Flanker was designed to have enormous internal capacity for fuel so it also didn't need to use external fuel tanks.

George1 wrote:

GarryB wrote:
I would think in the longer term the role of smaller cheaper numbers planes will be taken by UCAVs, but it will take time for these to mature.

Then why USA produced the expensive F-35?

Because it wasn't supposed to be on par with the F-22 from a cost perspective. But then you have to consider that we are the undisputed masters of financial mismanagement.

I think the deal with Japan was for somewhere around $80 million per jet though, so maybe the price is actually going to look better once the R&D costs go away. That's the main reason the B-2 looks so expensive on paper: you paid for the R&D costs over 21 airframes rather than 75-150. Hell, Lockheed claimed towards the end that they could build an F-22 for around $90 million, but still Congress said no.

Hell, Lockheed claimed towards the end that they could build an F-22 for around $90 million, but still Congress said no.

Probably because congress knew they would say $90 but when they got the final product it would be closer to $200 and restarting production would be so expensive that Lockheed would then say they can make 50 more for $200 million per airframe or 500 more for $120 million per airframe.

Either way the last airframes off the production line will cost $200 million each.

GarryB wrote:Probably because congress knew they would say $90 but when they got the final product it would be closer to $200 and restarting production would be so expensive that Lockheed would then say they can make 50 more for $200 million per airframe or 500 more for $120 million per airframe.

I'll have to find where I got the number. This was probably about two years before the last jet came off the line, maybe even a bit earlier than that. So you wouldn't be re-starting production at the juncture when they put the figure out there. At any rate, like any production line, the gist of it was that they'd been streamlining the process. Part of the overall confusion in things like this is that there are about four hundred iterations of how to look at a price tag, it seems. Do you factor in lifecycle costs? R&D? Flyaway cost? Unit cost? I will say that their ~$90 million USD figure probably would've been closer to ~95 or ~100 (depending on if it was on the high or low end of the 90's) simply because they might not be including the engines.

Russia eyes second 5th generation fighter

Russian media and military pundits have been heatedly discussing a second project of a cutting-edge fifth generation fighter that may join the Russian air force. A strong argument in favour of this backup project is competition, although such duplication of effort isn’t always a good thing.

The proposal to develop a second project of the fifth generation fighter was made by Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who has recently been put at the helm of the Russian defense industry. He first voiced the idea of developing a second fifth generation fighter in February 2012. Since then, the ministry itself has never either backed or dismissed it. Some experts believe the project could be assigned to the Mikoyan design bureau, the only bureau in Russia capable of tackling this task on a par with Sukhoi, which is already developing the T-50 aircraft of the PAK FA series (Promising Aviation Complex Tactical Aviation).

According to Mr. Rogozin, competition clearly speaks in favour of this initiative. Addressing the Federation Council, the upper house of the Russian Parliament, the deputy prime minister stressed that the Russian air force should have not one but two types of tactical fighters. The PAK FA aircraft is set to go into service by 2016.

Historically, the Russian air force has always had at least two types of tactical fighter jets in its fleet that basically supplemented instead of competing against each other. The existing MiG-29/Su-27 duet serves as a good example. The Su-27 has a longer range and is fitted with more powerful equipment and avionics, while the MiG-29 is lighter, less expensive to maintain and is better adapted for rough-field deployment.

The chronic lack of financing, which the Russian military faced in 1990s, forced it to put all its eggs into one basket and choose only one fighter plane as its ‘perspective tactical aircraft.’ The choice fell on the Su-27, favoured for a larger spectrum of combat capabilities and better flight performance compared to its MiG-29 rival. This status quo is here to stay, since the tested T-50 jet belongs to the so-called ‘heavy-class fighters’.

The potential niche for a second fifth generation fighter has thus been determined. It has to be a lighter, cheaper and simpler sort of aircraft, compared to the more ‘advanced’ T-50 plane. “A light aircraft would only make sense if its characteristics were brought closer to the heavier [T-50] fighter. First of all, we’re talking about the engines,” Russian military pundit Konstantin Bogdanov told The Voice of Russia. “If they developed an aircraft that would be powered by a single ‘Device 117,’ or a second-stage T-50 engine, this jet would be of interest both to the Russian air force and to the foreign market. However, in the foreign market, it would have to compete against the F-35, which would occupy the best niches by the time our lightweight fighter entered the market.”

According to Mr. Bogdanov, a cutting-edge light aircraft can attract the attention of the military. “Since the Russian air force shows no intention to purchase MiG-35 jets, they could be potentially interested in replacing the old MiG-29 fleet with brand new fighters.”

Still, Andrei Fomin, Editor-in-Chief of the “Vzlyot” (“Takeoff”) aviation magazine, doubts the potential of such aircraft. “As far as I can judge, the approved Russian State Armaments Program doesn’t provide for a second fifth generation fighter project, apart from the T-50. The fact that the Defense Ministry is going to cough up for the completion and the launching of the T-50 fighters, as well as mass production of a whole array of other types of hardware, dwarfs the chances of having a second project. This plan could perhaps be fulfilled in the context of international cooperation if Russia could attract one or more foreign investors.”

In a nutshell, a light fighter project is only worth the effort if it is brought as close as possible to the T-50. In that case, the new fighter will be assigned to the Sukhoi design bureau, which will effectively leave Mikoyan out in the cold again. Still, there is a clear demand for this kind of aircraft and it has been brought into the spotlight. Only time will tell what becomes of it.

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_03_13/68341923/

Thinking more deeply i realised they did the right thing not funding a 2nd 5th Gen fighter , Even Europe has skipped 5th Gen and are investing in UCAV and US too is practically left with JSF as single 5th gen fighter.

The future is UAV and UCAV , building a wide range of UAV and building UCAV is the future and its better money is invested in those areas rather then building a new 5th Gen fighter.

Better build Su-35 and Mig-35 and leave the money to build UCAV and UAV. PAK-FA is good enough 5th gen fighter to meet competition

The better more sensible approach I think would be to develop a cheap 5th gen fighter that could be evolved into a 6th gen UCAV.

As shown by the US UCAV that crashed in Iran these things aren't perfect yet and no one AFAIK has convincingly created a UCAV fighter that wont shoot down all your other UAVs and civilian airliners...


If the Russians do it right and make a genuine 5th gen fighter that does not cost an arm and a leg I think their export prospects would actually be pretty good and would allow Russia to make export sales without compromising their main stealth fighter.

They can also build an export variant of PAK-FA for global customers , they have already mentioned they are building a new CAS type aircraft a follow on to Su-25.

Building a new light fighter is a drain on money which they dont have , better to fund UAV and UCAV which is the future.

For this decade Su-35S,Mig-35,Su-34 ,Su-30SM and PAK-FA is more than enough , next decade they have new CAS type aircraft and UAV and UCAV of new generation.

They can also build an export variant of PAK-FA for global customers , they have already mentioned they are building a new CAS type aircraft a follow on to Su-25.

Most of Russias export customers couldn't afford the 1970s generation SAM system, India is already buying a PAK FA so to speak and China will not buy 500 PAK FAs.... they might order 500 and then cancel the order after 5 have been delivered...

Their aircraft developers have all been working on stealth planes, the fact that Sukhoi got the contract for PAK FA is nice, but using the resources and developments by the other companies that is scaled down and with a focus on low cost stealth will lead to a product that will be useful for export as a primary fighter for smaller forces, as a secondary numbers aircraft for Russia, and in time the potential for the basis of a UCAV.

Regarding the replacement for the Su-25, if that poster showing helicopter development that had a coaxial helicopter with a pusher propeller is anything to go by the new stealthy CAS aircraft might combine aircraft and helicopter in one package...

A new subsonic replacement for the Su-25 will develop technologies that might be very useful for a light 5th gen fighter, and lets face it a 5th gen anything will have the sensors and computing power and weapons options to perform almost any role including stand off CAS directing UCAV over the enemy positions...

Building a new light fighter is a drain on money which they dont have , better to fund UAV and UCAV which is the future.

Two points. They do have money. Plus in the long term this will save money and likely be a good little earner of money. If they can make something with decent performance with a reasonable price and low operating costs they could steal clients from the F-35 which is in hard times ATM.

For this decade Su-35S,Mig-35,Su-34 ,Su-30SM and PAK-FA is more than enough , next decade they have new CAS type aircraft and UAV and UCAV of new generation.

But they don't have Mig-35... perhaps instead of buying the Mig-35 they could invest the money in initially a 5th gen light fighter shell with most of the Mig-35s bits in it including the AESA radar and EO system with 10 external weapons and perhaps 8 internal weapons positions for stealthy operations.

Or perhaps they could develop stealthy external pods that can contain a reasonable weapon load without having to have a large internal weapons bay... which would be difficult on a small aircraft.

I would probably retain the twin engine configuration with widely separated engines with large internal volume for light weapons like AAMs and 500kg sate guided bombs etc

When the enemy radar has been dealt with however external weapon points for large numbers of weapons would make it an effective bomb truck/CAS/light interceptor/fighter.

UAVs and UCAVs sound nice on paper but are too vulnerable and not exactly cheap either.

Until there is a leap in computing technologies, then we will enter the 6th gen. As of now, there is a technological stagnation that keeps us at maximum in the 5th generation field. So dont be thinking Stealth the movie would be near your shores anytime soon

The only thing in Stealth that was worth watching was the chick... and not for her acting.

The rest was rubbish... the speeds those secret planes were supposed to be able to travel at and the distances the travelled... who would need ICBMs?

I am sure it is a comfort to Americans to believe that there are super secret US systems that will keep them safe from everything... problem is that the thing that actually keeps them safe from everyone is the dirty tricks and murder that is used to keep everyone else down.

Light 5th gen could appear after all

Russia's military aircraft industry: overview and outlook




During the round table discussion regarding the current state and the process of re-equipment and the prospects of the Russian Air Force Konstantin Makienko, deputy director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, presented his report on the prospects of producing military aviation equipment for export and the use by the Russian Air Force.

The leading tendency of the next ten years will be the reorientation of the aviation industry from exports to the internal market. According to Makienko, it is linked to the drastic increase of the volume of aviation equipment purchased for the Russian Air Force as well as the expected concurrent drop in the external demand.

The drop in exports will be primarily driven by the end of the Chinese purchase orders and the saturation of the Indian market where the Su-30 MKI program has passed its peak. Besides India, the demand will center around South-East Asia, but naturally that size of that export will be quite smaller than the procurement for the Russian Air Force and the Naval aviation, as well as the huge Chinese and Indian contracts of the late 1990s- early 2000s.

At the same time in the event the necessary political decisions are made and the escalation of the Il-476 project Russia's reentry to the Chinese market is possible. For that purpose the Chinese Air Force and Navy should be offered attack aircraft with a high anti-ship potential, such as modernized Tu-22M3 and Su-32/34. Besides that, if the Il-476 project shows positive dynamics in the next couple of years, one can hope for the restoration of the 2005 contract to purchase 38 Il-76/78 that was not fulfilled due to a number of financial and production related reasons.

The drop in external demand will be well compensated by the procurement for the Russian Air Force and the Navy. Over the last few months, orders have been placed for 92 Su-34 fighter-bombers, 24 MiG-29K carrier-based fighter aircraft and 30 Su-30 CM multipurpose fighter aircraft. According to some sources, the State Rearmament Program 2020 envisions the acquisition of 600 tactical aviation aircraft.

In such circumstances producing a long-term strategy of developing the aviation industry after 2020 when the current 2020 program expires, becomes a matter of principle. With the current state of things in 2020 Russia will have only two competitive products with a good commercial potential – that is the T-50 heavy fighter and a family of trainer/light attack aircraft based on Yak-130. It appears that the development of the Russian aviation industry during this planning period will largely depend on the ability to solve two main tasks in the near future. The first task is to develop a competitive product (for the period after 2020) in the segment of commercial aviation. The second task is to develop a relatively simple and inexpensive combat aviation complex, or a «light» fighter plane that would be able to effectively compete with F-35.

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_05_16/74828078/

Today Zelin has mentioned that they will develop a new twin seater ground attack aircraft that would eventually replace Su-25 , I wont be surprised it would have LMFS features plus ground attack optimisation.

He denied this will be YAK-131 Light Attack Aircraft as that project is rejected,its cleraly a new design with stealth and likely Sukhoi design bird

I rather suspect that this situation will mimic the T-95/Armata situation, where the focus has changed slightly so the previously designed Mig light 5th gen fighter design was probably not that cheap (if a 5th gen fighter could ever be actually called a cheap aircraft...) so they are calling for the redesign of the light future 5th gen fighter to make it low cost to buy and operate.

It will still require 5th gen capabilities, and for a small aircraft max range wont be so important, but super cruising capability will maximise range anyway. It is likely a higher top speed might be useful for shorter range interceptions and there will be no requirement for a super heavy internal payload. It will need air to air and air to ground capability and when used together with the PAK FA could be used more for ground attack light strike missions... though not CAS as it wont be armoured.

Regarding the new CAS to replace the Su-25SM... the article I read said the new aircraft for 2020 will be based on the Su-25 design so I am expecting a new, larger, reshaped but still well protected Su-25. With their experience with the Su-34 it is possible they might go for a two seat side by side aircraft which will make the fuselage much wider and allow more volume for internal fuel and a larger nose mounted radar and sensors. I rather suspect they will add some sort of targeting pod and with the wider fuselage could add limited internal weapons carriage... perhaps a load of ARMs to defeat radar targets so external weapons can be deployed safely... The emphasis seemed to be on stealth features rather than actual stealth so I think they might redesign a few features to reduce RCS but it will not be stealthy or even LO. Its greatest threats will be IR and EO guided missiles and small arms fire and light AAA fire. A decent DIRCMS package will be far more useful.

Changes could also include a rear mounted pusher propeller engine with contra rotating blades with a large and powerful engine with a relatively low IR signature.

Well US intend to replace A-10 with F-35 and yet claim it to be top noch fighter so new Russian attack fighter might indeed replace Su-25 in a sense it will have decent ground attack capability but at the same time be true multirole light 5th gen fighter.

Viktor wrote:Well US intend to replace A-10 with F-35 and yet claim it to be top noch fighter so new Russian attack fighter might indeed replace Su-25 in a sense it will have decent ground attack capability but at the same time be true multirole light 5th gen fighter.

I bet it would be a dedicated ground attack fighter in Mig-29 class with Air Defence Capability as good if not better than JSF

Austin wrote:

Viktor wrote:Well US intend to replace A-10 with F-35 and yet claim it to be top noch fighter so new Russian attack fighter might indeed replace Su-25 in a sense it will have decent ground attack capability but at the same time be true multirole light 5th gen fighter.

I bet it would be a dedicated ground attack fighter in Mig-29 class with Air Defence Capability as good if not better than JSF

That means a light strike fighter

However Zelin said that new CAS aircraft will be based on Su-25SM