5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

Russia Developing Fifth Generation Lightweight Fighter Jet

LMFS??

Werent there mentions that future light multirole fighter will be single engined? If its based on Mig35 technology and if they follow ideas that LMFS had it will be twin engined then.

Source: "MiG" is developing a second Russian fifth-generation aircraft based on the MiG-1.44


http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2300532

""RSK "MiG" is developing a second version of the PAK FA. Based on the aerodynamic configuration of the MiG-1.44 and those developments that were on this prototype," - said the Agency interlocutor.
According to him, "it would be a lightweight variant of the PAK FA" will not compete with the model T-50 designed by Sukhoi.
In June the Corporation that the Corporation continues to work on a light fighter of the fifth generation, despite the absence of the order. Earlier it was reported that the platform for this aircraft may be the MiG-35. In the United aircraft Corporation said that the establishment of a light fighter is not a priority for the company."





Well now I am impatiently waiting for new Yak-141II for Russian Navy

Not going to happen unless state funded , Mig is just toying with the idea with its own fund

Austin wrote:Not going to happen unless state funded , Mig is just toying with the idea with its own fund

Not exactly. Su-35S was a total knaapo funded project. Mikoyan could pull it off by using some already old blueprints and equipment they are working with for MiG-35

As well, we dont really know if the government isnt funding it or not.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Source: "MiG" is developing a second Russian fifth-generation aircraft based on the MiG-1.44


http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2300532

""RSK "MiG" is developing a second version of the PAK FA. Based on the aerodynamic configuration of the MiG-1.44 and those developments that were on this prototype," - said the Agency interlocutor.
According to him, "it would be a lightweight variant of the PAK FA" will not compete with the model T-50 designed by Sukhoi.
In June the Corporation that the Corporation continues to work on a light fighter of the fifth generation, despite the absence of the order. Earlier it was reported that the platform for this aircraft may be the MiG-35. In the United aircraft Corporation said that the establishment of a light fighter is not a priority for the company."





Well now I am impatiently waiting for new Yak-141II for Russian Navy

Hmm, seems like its not state funded, what i did hear about state funded project is that they wanted to base it on MiG35.... from where da hell now comes this 1.44 thing. And you can see "In the United aircraft Corporation said that the establishment of a light fighter is not a priority for the company.", ofc its not, there is simply not enough money... What will happen, is that they will use MiG35 base, and use PAK FA solutions to make it stealthier, probably make smaller version of its radar suite with main radar having 1000 modues and thats about it. They will make it affordable much as possible and base it on existing solution, just my opinion tho.

Militarov wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Source: "MiG" is developing a second Russian fifth-generation aircraft based on the MiG-1.44

""RSK "MiG" is developing a second version of the PAK FA. Based on the aerodynamic configuration of the MiG-1.44 and those developments that were on this prototype," - said the Agency interlocutor.
According to him, "it would be a lightweight variant of the PAK FA" will not compete with the model T-50 designed by Sukhoi.
In June the Corporation that the Corporation continues to work on a light fighter of the fifth generation, despite the absence of the order. Earlier it was reported that the platform for this aircraft may be the MiG-35. In the United aircraft Corporation said that the establishment of a light fighter is not a priority for the company."

Hmm, seems like its not state funded, what i did hear about state funded project is that they wanted to base it on MiG35.... from where da hell now comes this 1.44 thing. And you can see "In the United aircraft Corporation said that the establishment of a light fighter is not a priority for the company.", ofc its not, there is simply not enough money... What will happen, is that they will use MiG35 base, and use PAK FA solutions to make it stealthier, probably make smaller version of its radar suite with main radar having 1000 modues and thats about it. They will make it affordable much as possible and base it on existing solution, just my opinion tho.

In press article was mentioned that no plans was earlier. Plans change, in the meantime mybe there was funds reshuffling concentrically (?)

a) MiG 1.44 pops up on Maks 2015
b) No more info about Skat heavy droves but pops up info about Yak derived ones

The think that puzzles me is they said light but MiG 1.44 is in the same class size/wight as PAK-FA. SO light one based on Mig 1.44 and maybe again they also will use MiG 1.44 basis for new interceptor ? Max speed was something like 3,200 km/h

I stand by my statement. If Mikoyan wasnt working on one or developing one or whatever, they wouldnt have mentioned it multiple of times. That said, the move towards using MiG 1.44 as the basis of the new jet is a good idea, and will save a lot of money when developing it. Add in, using the technologies learned and learning for MiG-35, will definately help. If they can make a fifth gen fighter at the price point of an Su-35S, they could very well obtain many orders, and would be ideal for Russia.

Like I said, Su-35S was knaapo self fubded endevour. After recent orders and such for MiG-29K, M's and upgrades, they more than likely earned enough money to at least start this program. They may see the potential orders for Su-35S as an example.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Source: "MiG" is developing a second Russian fifth-generation aircraft based on the MiG-1.44


http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2300532

""RSK "MiG" is developing a second version of the PAK FA. Based on the aerodynamic configuration of the MiG-1.44 and those developments that were on this prototype," - said the Agency interlocutor.
According to him, "it would be a lightweight variant of the PAK FA" will not compete with the model T-50 designed by Sukhoi.
In June the Corporation that the Corporation continues to work on a light fighter of the fifth generation, despite the absence of the order. Earlier it was reported that the platform for this aircraft may be the MiG-35. In the United aircraft Corporation said that the establishment of a light fighter is not a priority for the company."





Well now I am impatiently waiting for new Yak-141II for Russian Navy

Most probably they will develop MiG-31 replacement based on MiG-1-44.

medo wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Source: "MiG" is developing a second Russian fifth-generation aircraft based on the MiG-1.44


http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2300532

""RSK "MiG" is developing a second version of the PAK FA. Based on the aerodynamic configuration of the MiG-1.44 and those developments that were on this prototype," - said the Agency interlocutor.
According to him, "it would be a lightweight variant of the PAK FA" will not compete with the model T-50 designed by Sukhoi.
In June the Corporation that the Corporation continues to work on a light fighter of the fifth generation, despite the absence of the order. Earlier it was reported that the platform for this aircraft may be the MiG-35. In the United aircraft Corporation said that the establishment of a light fighter is not a priority for the company."





Well now I am impatiently waiting for new Yak-141II for Russian Navy

Most probably they will develop MiG-31 replacement based on MiG-1-44.

Interceptor on 1.44 base is plausible to happen imo.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Militarov wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Source: "MiG" is developing a second Russian fifth-generation aircraft based on the MiG-1.44

""RSK "MiG" is developing a second version of the PAK FA. Based on the aerodynamic configuration of the MiG-1.44 and those developments that were on this prototype," - said the Agency interlocutor.
According to him, "it would be a lightweight variant of the PAK FA" will not compete with the model T-50 designed by Sukhoi.
In June the Corporation that the Corporation continues to work on a light fighter of the fifth generation, despite the absence of the order. Earlier it was reported that the platform for this aircraft may be the MiG-35. In the United aircraft Corporation said that the establishment of a light fighter is not a priority for the company."

Hmm, seems like its not state funded, what i did hear about state funded project is that they wanted to base it on MiG35.... from where da hell now comes this 1.44 thing. And you can see "In the United aircraft Corporation said that the establishment of a light fighter is not a priority for the company.", ofc its not, there is simply not enough money... What will happen, is that they will use MiG35 base, and use PAK FA solutions to make it stealthier, probably make smaller version of its radar suite with main radar having 1000 modues and thats about it. They will make it affordable much as possible and base it on existing solution, just my opinion tho.

In press article was mentioned that no plans was earlier. Plans change, in the meantime mybe there was funds reshuffling concentrically (?)  

a) MiG 1.44 pops up on Maks 2015
b) No more info about Skat heavy droves but  pops up info about Yak derived ones

The think that puzzles me is they said light but MiG 1.44 is in the same class size/wight as PAK-FA. SO light one based on Mig 1.44 and maybe again they also will use MiG 1.44 basis for new interceptor ? Max speed was something like 3,200 km/h

Well what they ment is that they will use solutions from 1.44, its not mandatory to keep same size. Well VM-T Atlant was there too, but noone is expecting Russians to revive that project

Yak derived drones are around in talks since late 90s, i remember reading about it in 2000. or so in local Aviation magazine, so it doesnt mean much. Skat seems to have been going "underground" since it was taken as project from MiG, doesnt have to mean its dead.

Militarov wrote: Well what they ment is that they will use solutions from 1.44, its not mandatory to keep same size. Well VM-T Atlant was there too, but noone is expecting Russians to revive that project

Yak derived drones are around in talks since late 90s, i remember reading about it in 2000. or so in local Aviation magazine, so it doesnt mean much. Skat seems to have been going "underground" since it was taken as project from MiG, doesnt have to mean its dead.

No Atlant? no Sh!t mate !

Yup but whether they use MiG 1.44 solutions on both lightweight and cheaper one (theme T-50) aandd supa dupa interceptor? I hope they do, but we´ll need to be patient

As for Yak drones -IMHO very good way to decrease unit costs for Yak . All based on one frame and technologies. Unlike MiG even assembly line can be partially used. SO light multirole (export mianly) , trainer and drone.

Only Yak-141 is missing

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Militarov wrote: Well what they ment is that they will use solutions from 1.44, its not mandatory to keep same size. Well VM-T Atlant was there too, but noone is expecting Russians to revive that project

Yak derived drones are around in talks since late 90s, i remember reading about it in 2000. or so in local Aviation magazine, so it doesnt mean much. Skat seems to have been going "underground" since it was taken as project from MiG, doesnt have to mean its dead.

No Atlant? no Sh!t mate !

Yup but whether they use MiG 1.44 solutions on both lightweight and cheaper one (theme T-50) aandd supa dupa interceptor? I hope they do, but we´ll need to be patient

As for Yak drones -IMHO very good way to decrease unit costs for Yak . All based on one frame and technologies. Unlike MiG even assembly line can be partially used. SO light multirole (export mianly) , trainer and drone.

Only Yak-141 is missing

Directly from the site of Yakovlev regarding Yak130 platform.

People do the fact that having lightweight PAK-FA is not a priority does not mean that there is zero interrest from goverment. It just means that they want to finish T-50 and put it into production before focusing on LMFI. By the time this change of focus happens MIG is perfectly capable of funding the research using its own funds. That would significantly shorten the development time and by the time MoD will provide the funds MIG would have finished some part of the research and development efforts. I have read that the goverment indeed plans to have and even export lighter version of 5th gen fighter. So the approach MIG takes is the right one.

Flanky wrote:People do the fact that having lightweight PAK-FA is not a priority does not mean that there is zero interrest from goverment. It just means that they want to finish T-50 and put it into production before focusing on LMFI. By the time this change of focus happens MIG is perfectly capable of funding the research using its own funds. That would significantly shorten the development time and by the time MoD will provide the funds MIG would have finished some part of the research and development efforts. I have read that the goverment indeed plans to have and even export lighter version of 5th gen fighter. So the approach MIG takes is the right one.

Russia badly lacks light single engined fighter they didnt have one basically since MiG21, cheap single engined fighters are needed for air patrols, training, building pilot hours in air etc, especially great solution if they are unified with bigger twin engine platform and built on same core (radar, engine, controls layout, common parts...). Something of a Tejas class lets say, to cost 20-25mil USD so its available in quantities.

Militarov wrote:

Flanky wrote:People do the fact that having lightweight PAK-FA is not a priority does not mean that there is zero interrest from goverment. It just means that they want to finish T-50 and put it into production before focusing on LMFI. By the time this change of focus happens MIG is perfectly capable of funding the research using its own funds. That would significantly shorten the development time and by the time MoD will provide the funds MIG would have finished some part of the research and development efforts. I have read that the goverment indeed plans to have and even export lighter version of 5th gen fighter. So the approach MIG takes is the right one.

Russia badly lacks light single engined fighter they didnt have one basically since MiG21, cheap single engined fighters are needed for air patrols, training, building pilot hours in air etc, especially great solution if they are unified with bigger twin engine platform and built on same core (radar, engine, controls layout, common parts...). Something of a Tejas class lets say, to cost 20-25mil USD so its available in quantities.

I am always expecting a cheap single jet engine fighter would be ideal for Russia. But it appears that Russia has very little love for them and would rather spend a bit more for a dual engined aircraft. They had singe jet engine aircrafts in service after MiG-21 and that was MiG-23 and 27 which both were also retired same time (roughly). I imagine this LMFS if ever made, will also be dual engine. Would have been cool if Russia did ever decided to actually develop the MiG-33 (fabled I know) which ended up as the JF-17.

sepheronx wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Flanky wrote:People do the fact that having lightweight PAK-FA is not a priority does not mean that there is zero interrest from goverment. It just means that they want to finish T-50 and put it into production before focusing on LMFI. By the time this change of focus happens MIG is perfectly capable of funding the research using its own funds. That would significantly shorten the development time and by the time MoD will provide the funds MIG would have finished some part of the research and development efforts. I have read that the goverment indeed plans to have and even export lighter version of 5th gen fighter. So the approach MIG takes is the right one.

Russia badly lacks light single engined fighter they didnt have one basically since MiG21, cheap single engined fighters are needed for air patrols, training, building pilot hours in air etc, especially great solution if they are unified with bigger twin engine platform and built on same core (radar, engine, controls layout, common parts...). Something of a Tejas class lets say, to cost 20-25mil USD so its available in quantities.

I am always expecting a cheap single jet engine fighter would be ideal for Russia.  But it appears that Russia has very little love for them and would rather spend a bit more for a dual engined aircraft.  They had singe jet engine aircrafts in service after MiG-21 and that was MiG-23 and 27 which both were also retired same time (roughly).  I imagine this LMFS if ever made, will also be dual engine.  Would have been cool if Russia did ever decided to actually develop the MiG-33 (fabled I know) which ended up as the JF-17.

Legend says Russians stopped making single engined fighters coz of their bad experience with MiG21 crashes due to engine failures, but hey, engines improved since then i dont see AL-31F M2 for an example being unreliable etc, making some lighter multirole fighter with such engine would be ideal imo, abit bigger than JF-17 or modern RD33 engine anyways to be in JF17 class doesnt really matter. And yeah i am afraid that future LMFS shall be twin engined most likely it seems.

Militarov wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Flanky wrote:People do the fact that having lightweight PAK-FA is not a priority does not mean that there is zero interrest from goverment. It just means that they want to finish T-50 and put it into production before focusing on LMFI. By the time this change of focus happens MIG is perfectly capable of funding the research using its own funds. That would significantly shorten the development time and by the time MoD will provide the funds MIG would have finished some part of the research and development efforts. I have read that the goverment indeed plans to have and even export lighter version of 5th gen fighter. So the approach MIG takes is the right one.

Russia badly lacks light single engined fighter they didnt have one basically since MiG21, cheap single engined fighters are needed for air patrols, training, building pilot hours in air etc, especially great solution if they are unified with bigger twin engine platform and built on same core (radar, engine, controls layout, common parts...). Something of a Tejas class lets say, to cost 20-25mil USD so its available in quantities.

I am always expecting a cheap single jet engine fighter would be ideal for Russia.  But it appears that Russia has very little love for them and would rather spend a bit more for a dual engined aircraft.  They had singe jet engine aircrafts in service after MiG-21 and that was MiG-23 and 27 which both were also retired same time (roughly).  I imagine this LMFS if ever made, will also be dual engine.  Would have been cool if Russia did ever decided to actually develop the MiG-33 (fabled I know) which ended up as the JF-17.

Legend says Russians stopped making single engined fighters coz of their bad experience with MiG21 crashes due to engine failures, but hey, engines improved since then i dont see AL-31F M2 for an example being unreliable etc, making some lighter multirole fighter with such engine would be ideal imo, abit bigger than JF-17 or modern RD33 engine anyways to be in JF17 class doesnt really matter. And yeah i am afraid that future LMFS shall be twin engined most likely it seems.

Well apparently Pakistan and China both praised the RD-93 engines used on the JF-17. I also would prefer to see a single engine aircraft as a single jet engine will greatly reduce overall costs. But a major problem I am seeing with smaller aircraft of Russian design, and it is evident on MiG-29/35's, is the powersupply/generator used to power onboard electronics. I had an argument a while back with an Egyptian on this forums (whom I regret being aggressive towards as he was actually a really good guy), that was saying that the Zhuk-A radars are quite weak. Issue was that the radar used on the Zhuk-A as an example had a detection range of roughly 160km for 3m^2 targets. After doing an investigation, the apparent GaAS modules used were rated at most 5W each (these modules are from Istok. But updated info I found was roughly upwards to 10w each and while the competition from Tikhomirov NIIP apparently has 15W or higher GaAS and working on 30W GaN modules), and that the performance should be around 250km for 3m^2 targets and that the main issue is that the modules are roughly only operating at 3W max and not at their intended max wattage (thus producing reduced performance). And so there are two theories behind it: either it has issues with proper cooling thus the modules have to be reduced in the amount of power sent to the modules so it does not overheat causing damages, or it is due to a lack of power being drawn, thus generator/psu issues. How I figured it was a PSU issue is that I figure (just guessing really as I didn't think that Tikhomirov made any modules, and still not entirely sure it is them that is making it or Istok is really the only one making the modules) that both N036 radar used for PAK FA and Zhuk-A were both using same T/R modules and that N036 using 1500 t/r modules was indeed performing in its respective performance rating (400km for fighter sized targets) compared to what the Zhuk-A's intended range of 250km when only operating at 160km with roughly close to 1000 t/r modules. And thus I figure that the N036 was running at its full capacity in order to see such targets from a distance all due to its powersupply being able to produce upwards to 15KW of power, which is a huge amounts (Su-35S for example produces 20KW).

If I am correct on my assumptions, then the big challenge for Mikoyan is producing generator/psu and cooling system for the aesa modules. Since phazotron (whom makes the Zhuk-A) is owned by KRET (a subsiduary of Rostec), then the future holds using Photon's for the T/R modules rather than simply electron flow. And that there will be massive performance increases. But one thing to make certain of its true performance, will have to be what I presume is the main problems facing MiG-35.

sepheronx wrote:

Militarov wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Flanky wrote:People do the fact that having lightweight PAK-FA is not a priority does not mean that there is zero interrest from goverment. It just means that they want to finish T-50 and put it into production before focusing on LMFI. By the time this change of focus happens MIG is perfectly capable of funding the research using its own funds. That would significantly shorten the development time and by the time MoD will provide the funds MIG would have finished some part of the research and development efforts. I have read that the goverment indeed plans to have and even export lighter version of 5th gen fighter. So the approach MIG takes is the right one.

Russia badly lacks light single engined fighter they didnt have one basically since MiG21, cheap single engined fighters are needed for air patrols, training, building pilot hours in air etc, especially great solution if they are unified with bigger twin engine platform and built on same core (radar, engine, controls layout, common parts...). Something of a Tejas class lets say, to cost 20-25mil USD so its available in quantities.

I am always expecting a cheap single jet engine fighter would be ideal for Russia.  But it appears that Russia has very little love for them and would rather spend a bit more for a dual engined aircraft.  They had singe jet engine aircrafts in service after MiG-21 and that was MiG-23 and 27 which both were also retired same time (roughly).  I imagine this LMFS if ever made, will also be dual engine.  Would have been cool if Russia did ever decided to actually develop the MiG-33 (fabled I know) which ended up as the JF-17.

Legend says Russians stopped making single engined fighters coz of their bad experience with MiG21 crashes due to engine failures, but hey, engines improved since then i dont see AL-31F M2 for an example being unreliable etc, making some lighter multirole fighter with such engine would be ideal imo, abit bigger than JF-17 or modern RD33 engine anyways to be in JF17 class doesnt really matter. And yeah i am afraid that future LMFS shall be twin engined most likely it seems.

Well apparently Pakistan and China both praised the RD-93 engines used on the JF-17.  I also would prefer to see a single engine aircraft as a single jet engine will greatly reduce overall costs.  But a major problem I am seeing with smaller aircraft of Russian design, and it is evident on MiG-29/35's, is the powersupply/generator used to power onboard electronics.  I had an argument a while back with an Egyptian on this forums (whom I regret being aggressive towards as he was actually a really good guy), that was saying that the Zhuk-A radars are quite weak.  Issue was that the radar used on the Zhuk-A as an example had a detection range of roughly 160km for 3m^2 targets.  After doing an investigation, the apparent GaAS modules used were rated at most 5W each (these modules are from Istok.  But updated info I found was roughly upwards to 10w each and while the competition from Tikhomirov NIIP apparently has 15W or higher GaAS and working on 30W GaN modules), and that the performance should be around 250km for 3m^2 targets and that the main issue is that the modules are roughly only operating at 3W max and not at their intended max wattage (thus producing reduced performance).  And so there are two theories behind it: either it has issues with proper cooling thus the modules have to be reduced in the amount of power sent to the modules so it does not overheat causing damages, or it is due to a lack of power being drawn, thus generator/psu issues.  How I figured it was a PSU issue is that I figure (just guessing really as I didn't think that Tikhomirov made any modules, and still not entirely sure it is them that is making it or Istok is really the only one making the modules) that both N036 radar used for PAK FA and Zhuk-A were both using same T/R modules and that N036 using 1500 t/r modules was indeed performing in its respective performance rating (400km for fighter sized targets) compared to what the Zhuk-A's intended range of 250km when only operating at 160km with roughly close to 1000 t/r modules.  And thus I figure that the N036 was running at its full capacity in order to see such targets from a distance all due to its powersupply being able to produce upwards to 15KW of power, which is a huge amounts (Su-35S for example produces 20KW).

If I am correct on my assumptions, then the big challenge for Mikoyan is producing generator/psu and cooling system for the aesa modules.  Since phazotron (whom makes the Zhuk-A) is owned by KRET (a subsiduary of Rostec), then the future holds using Photon's for the T/R modules rather than simply electron flow.  And that there will be massive performance increases.  But one thing to make certain of its true performance, will have to be what I presume is the main problems facing MiG-35.

Yeah i have been reading about whole AESA developing in Russia mess myself but at the end of the day i dont think powering it up should be much of an issue, if Chinese can power up their J10B/JF17 radars no question about Russians being able to. Power consumption incr. with AESA with 1000+ modules surely can be troubling but they, there are solutions i suppose in better/newer electricity generators, or on other side, reduce amount of modules, after all goal would be cheap multirole fighter, no need for 1500+ modules.

The issue of one engine or two is not that simple.

Having two engines means each engine does not need to be as powerful so you can use cheaper less powerful engines in a design.

there are plenty of pluses and minuses but ironically with a stealth fighter that needs a large internal weapons bay actually having two widely separated engines has two very real and very important advantages... the first and most obvious is the space between can be used as a weapon bay for internal weapons. the second less obvious is that widely separated engines allows differential thrust vectoring of the engines... is one nozzle up and one down allows high roll rates rapidly, whereas a single engine means little to no roll control in the flight envelope where conventional control surfaces are in super stall.

Modern modular design means modern aircraft should be cheaper and simpler to maintain and operate, with the MiG-35 reportedly being 40% cheaper to operate than the MiG-29.

Another disadvantage of two engines is larger frontal area leading to higher drag but that would be compensated by internal weapons carriage and being able to carry more internal fuel and systems.

Most aircraft have a top power rating and a cruise power rating, but twin engines generally allows higher top thrust rating and does not double the fuel consumption.

Fuel consumption is calculated by the number of grammes of fuel needed to produce x amount of thrust... whether it is one engine producing it or two.

this means that if the engine fuel consumption rates are the same then two engines will use the same amount of fuel for the same amount of thrust.

The main difference is that the total thrust of two engines is normally higher than the thrust of the single engine.

A good example would be the RD-33 engines of the MiG-29 and the alternative single engine of the period.. the AL-31 of the Su-27.

designing the MiG to have one 12.5 ton thrust engine would have made it smaller and rather less powerful, while using two 8 ton thrust engines increases the frontal area but also allows an extra 1/3rd of power at top power setting.

The difference in performance is that in cruise flight both single and twin engine aircraft will be flying at about 3 tons thrust, but the single engined aircraft will be running at 3 tons and the twin engine will be running at 1.5 tons thrust per engine... the real difference will be when acceleration and energy recovery are important because the 16 tons of thrust of the twin engine model will allow higher top speed and better acceleration at the cost of higher fuel consumption.

Regarding power take off, the fact that the old power converters that took power from the engine to power on board systems including pod mounted jammers and large AESA arrays were not designed for the job needed today... two more powerful engines would allow more power to be generated when needed.

Militarov wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

Militarov wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Flanky wrote:People do the fact that having lightweight PAK-FA is not a priority does not mean that there is zero interrest from goverment. It just means that they want to finish T-50 and put it into production before focusing on LMFI. By the time this change of focus happens MIG is perfectly capable of funding the research using its own funds. That would significantly shorten the development time and by the time MoD will provide the funds MIG would have finished some part of the research and development efforts. I have read that the goverment indeed plans to have and even export lighter version of 5th gen fighter. So the approach MIG takes is the right one.

Russia badly lacks light single engined fighter they didnt have one basically since MiG21, cheap single engined fighters are needed for air patrols, training, building pilot hours in air etc, especially great solution if they are unified with bigger twin engine platform and built on same core (radar, engine, controls layout, common parts...). Something of a Tejas class lets say, to cost 20-25mil USD so its available in quantities.

I am always expecting a cheap single jet engine fighter would be ideal for Russia.  But it appears that Russia has very little love for them and would rather spend a bit more for a dual engined aircraft.  They had singe jet engine aircrafts in service after MiG-21 and that was MiG-23 and 27 which both were also retired same time (roughly).  I imagine this LMFS if ever made, will also be dual engine.  Would have been cool if Russia did ever decided to actually develop the MiG-33 (fabled I know) which ended up as the JF-17.

Legend says Russians stopped making single engined fighters coz of their bad experience with MiG21 crashes due to engine failures, but hey, engines improved since then i dont see AL-31F M2 for an example being unreliable etc, making some lighter multirole fighter with such engine would be ideal imo, abit bigger than JF-17 or modern RD33 engine anyways to be in JF17 class doesnt really matter. And yeah i am afraid that future LMFS shall be twin engined most likely it seems.

Well apparently Pakistan and China both praised the RD-93 engines used on the JF-17.  I also would prefer to see a single engine aircraft as a single jet engine will greatly reduce overall costs.  But a major problem I am seeing with smaller aircraft of Russian design, and it is evident on MiG-29/35's, is the powersupply/generator used to power onboard electronics.  I had an argument a while back with an Egyptian on this forums (whom I regret being aggressive towards as he was actually a really good guy), that was saying that the Zhuk-A radars are quite weak.  Issue was that the radar used on the Zhuk-A as an example had a detection range of roughly 160km for 3m^2 targets.  After doing an investigation, the apparent GaAS modules used were rated at most 5W each (these modules are from Istok.  But updated info I found was roughly upwards to 10w each and while the competition from Tikhomirov NIIP apparently has 15W or higher GaAS and working on 30W GaN modules), and that the performance should be around 250km for 3m^2 targets and that the main issue is that the modules are roughly only operating at 3W max and not at their intended max wattage (thus producing reduced performance).  And so there are two theories behind it: either it has issues with proper cooling thus the modules have to be reduced in the amount of power sent to the modules so it does not overheat causing damages, or it is due to a lack of power being drawn, thus generator/psu issues.  How I figured it was a PSU issue is that I figure (just guessing really as I didn't think that Tikhomirov made any modules, and still not entirely sure it is them that is making it or Istok is really the only one making the modules) that both N036 radar used for PAK FA and Zhuk-A were both using same T/R modules and that N036 using 1500 t/r modules was indeed performing in its respective performance rating (400km for fighter sized targets) compared to what the Zhuk-A's intended range of 250km when only operating at 160km with roughly close to 1000 t/r modules.  And thus I figure that the N036 was running at its full capacity in order to see such targets from a distance all due to its powersupply being able to produce upwards to 15KW of power, which is a huge amounts (Su-35S for example produces 20KW).

If I am correct on my assumptions, then the big challenge for Mikoyan is producing generator/psu and cooling system for the aesa modules.  Since phazotron (whom makes the Zhuk-A) is owned by KRET (a subsiduary of Rostec), then the future holds using Photon's for the T/R modules rather than simply electron flow.  And that there will be massive performance increases.  But one thing to make certain of its true performance, will have to be what I presume is the main problems facing MiG-35.

Yeah i have been reading about whole AESA developing in Russia mess myself but at the end of the day i dont think powering it up should be much of an issue, if Chinese can power up their J10B/JF17 radars no question about Russians being able to. Power consumption incr. with AESA with 1000+ modules surely can be troubling but they, there are solutions i suppose in better/newer electricity generators, or on other side, reduce amount of modules, after all goal would be cheap multirole fighter, no need for 1500+ modules.

Russia's AESA development seems to be going quite well, but the whole setup in terms of media information and open information is so clouded that I have absolutely no idea what is what and who makes what. I am aware Istok makes some. Then I am aware that there is another company making them. Then we get tidbit information of radar systems to be used on ships that are using Russian made GaN modules of roughly 30W each, but we get little no details afterwards. Apparently there is evidence that the T/R modules for the N036 are roughly 10 - 15W each, but there is some conflicting info if the Zhuk-A uses 5W or 10W modules. There was apparent issues with cooling the modules which caused issues in terms of performance, but I don't know if they fixed it or not, cause I have only heard rumors that the intended tests for N036 works, so that would mean that they operated in their intended purposes. Two different companies, so possibly two different solutions to the same problem.

Now development on making GaAS/GaN modules much cheaper currently in works and using Photons rather than electrons for the semiconductors for future (by 2020). So I have no real idea. Not a lot of people do. That guy Jo over at keypub obtains a ridiculous amounts of info on such things and I know Berkut also made mention as well. So he is another good one that would possibly know more.

Light fighter is rated for smaller amount of weapons to be carried so it does not need internal weapons bay as big as T-50 would. Differrential thrust of 2 engines might be as easily an asset as it might be a liability. You see from a statistical point of view and reliability 2 engines introduce a higher probability of one of them failing. If such engine were to fail on a 1985 Mig-29 during landing where seconds are crucial, it would cause such unwanted differrential in thrust that the plane would slide off the landing course and crash if the pilot would have been not quick enough to compensate for the loss of thrust of one of the engines. This can be done with automatic regulators today but back then the technology was not there... still it remains one of the most critical maneuvers. One other thing that speaks in favour of single engine is the production cost and time. Today as it was rightly pointed out - the reliability of single engine is very high. Operation from unpaved airstrips are thing of the past. If there is a need to make a forward operating base in a region wothout runway - highways are used. So having 2 engines for a light fighter is costly and the production and testing takes more time. There are countries for which price is a very significant factor - much more significant than for Russia or India. Thats where single engine design would be cheaper and ofcourse the weight of the plane would have to be designed so that the plane would be able to compete with top fighters. Another thing is production time and maintenance costs. Light fighter in terms of production costs and time should be much more expendable vehicle. In the old days Mig-21 was a perfect plane in this sense. Produced in thousands. If the LMFI will go back into the roots from where Mig came... then it would not only have big export potential as it would be cheap, light - i would say that it can have a big licence production potential for countries like Brazil or India as it would be relatively fast to manufacture exaclty because of only single engine.... - the second one which you would still normally use for the same Mig-29 can be used for a differrent unit.

Flanky wrote:Light fighter is rated for smaller amount of weapons to be carried so it does not need internal weapons bay as big as T-50 would. Differrential thrust of 2 engines might be as easily an asset as it might be a liability. You see from a statistical point of view and reliability 2 engines introduce a higher probability of one of them failing. If such engine were to fail on a 1985 Mig-29 during landing where seconds are crucial, it would cause such unwanted differrential in thrust that the plane would slide off the landing course and crash if the pilot would have been not quick enough to compensate for the loss of thrust of one of the engines. This can be done with automatic regulators today but back then the technology was not there... still it remains one of the most critical maneuvers. One other thing that speaks in favour of single engine is the production cost and time. Today as it was rightly pointed out - the reliability of single engine is very high. Operation from unpaved airstrips are thing of the past. If there is a need to make a forward operating base in a region wothout runway - highways are used. So having 2 engines for a light fighter is costly and the production and testing takes more time. There are countries for which price is a very significant factor - much more significant than for Russia or India. Thats where single engine design would be cheaper and ofcourse the weight of the plane would have to be designed so that the plane would be able to compete with top fighters. Another thing is production time and maintenance costs. Light fighter in terms of production costs and time should be much more expendable vehicle. In the old days Mig-21 was a perfect plane in this sense. Produced in thousands. If the LMFI will go back into the roots from where Mig came... then it would not only have big export potential as it would be cheap, light - i would say that it can have a big licence production potential for countries like Brazil or India as it would be relatively fast to manufacture exaclty because of only single engine.... - the second one which you would still normally use for the same Mig-29 can be used for a differrent unit.

I am big supporter of single engined light fighters, i see the point of Jak 130 having two engines but on real light multirole fighter i see less and less. Russia truly does need something light single engined, Gripen NG equal in terms of size and weight lets say. There are drawbacks, but there are also so many good sides, i simply dont like having everything with two engines.

Info stolen from keypub user crow11

- Mig is working independently on its 5th gen plane
- it is going to have a mass of 15 tonns (that is twice less then Pakfa)not sure if empty...
- It is going to be revealed in 2016

http://oborona.gov.ru/media/video/rusor2015102015

sorry source is in russian info @ 9 min approximately

rtech wrote:Info stolen from keypub user crow11

- Mig is working independently on its 5th gen plane
- it is going to have a mass of 15 tonns (that is twice less then Pakfa)not sure if empty...
- It is going to be revealed in 2016

http://oborona.gov.ru/media/video/rusor2015102015

sorry source is in russian info @ 9 min approximately

Probably a full size mockup in 2016. i guess, at least thats what i find plausible.