5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
In February alst year there were several press articles abut successor of MiG-35. Rogozin said that MiG is actually working on LMFS. Rogozin now is replaced by Borisov. Let's wait what he is going to say?

AiR&Cosmos also published a drawing by Piotr Butowski regarding possible look of MiG LMFS:

and here model of Yak-201 (LFI proposal) STOL. Wait, wait  Borisov ? didnt he want V/STOL fighter ?

Oh please, STOVL is dead!

Here, a reasonable LMFS should be a conventional fighter. Canards are classy

Whether the LMFS will have S-ducts this will determine if the Su-57 suffers in stealth from the lack of them. If the lack of S-ducts made the stealth of the Su-57 unacceptably worse, then MiG learned that and its reasonable to assume that they will patch things up.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Whether the LMFS will have S-ducts this will determine if the Su-57 suffers in stealth from the lack of them. If the lack of S-ducts made the stealth of the Su-57 unacceptably worse, then MiG learned that and its reasonable to assume that they will patch things up.

Do you think? Why would Sukhoi make such failure? It is not like they cannot measure the RCS of their design before going into the series...

LMFS wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Whether the LMFS will have S-ducts this will determine if the Su-57 suffers in stealth from the lack of them. If the lack of S-ducts made the stealth of the Su-57 unacceptably worse, then MiG learned that and its reasonable to assume that they will patch things up.

Do you think? Why would Sukhoi make such failure? It is not like they cannot measure the RCS of their design before going into the series...

Su-57 has radar blockers for its engines.

Isos wrote:

LMFS wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Whether the LMFS will have S-ducts this will determine if the Su-57 suffers in stealth from the lack of them. If the lack of S-ducts made the stealth of the Su-57 unacceptably worse, then MiG learned that and its reasonable to assume that they will patch things up.

Do you think? Why would Sukhoi make such failure? It is not like they cannot measure the RCS of their design before going into the series...

Su-57 has radar blockers for its engines.

Thanks for the clean-up Isos  

I know it has blockers. Just wanted to point out that it would be very illogical from Sukhoi to design a LO plane and then not take the engines into account...

A future LO fighter design would have essentially the same scientific and technological background that the PAK-FA had, so I doubt they would come to contradictory technical solutions

The X-32 looks like the old F-8 Crusader after a face-lift.

Sorry to say that, but i think Russia will skip the manned LMFS and go for combat drones in that size and weight category.

Hole wrote:The X-32 looks like the old F-8 Crusader after a face-lift.

Sorry to say that, but i think Russia will skip the manned LMFS and go for combat drones in that size and weight category.

You are damn right, look below: the "proposed" production version would not have been such an aesthetic outrage. The weird chin intake, as well as the thick belly, was necessary due to the engine being placed immediately after the cockpit in order to satisfy those absurd STOVL requirements (are you reading Gunship? )

It still intrigues me how they planned to manage the boundary layer in that intake though...

I tend to agree with you regarding the manned/unmanned thing, the VVS seems very satisfied with the Sukhois to go for light fighters other than to support MiG IMHO. Even when the LMFS could be a good idea, it will be very expensive to develop and the economic advantages against heavy fighters arguable given the relevance of avionics and LO in the cost of modern fighters. An ever hypothetical "export market potential" may be not enough to trigger the development.

For certain roles like observation and patrol a UAV is fine.

Even for striking targets of opportunity with a UCAV make sense because if you see something worth killing the time to get an attack aircraft into the air and to the target area means the target might have left the area and opportunity missed.

And really the deep strike in enemy controlled territory is already performed by the cruise missile and to a degree the long, medium, and short range interception role can be taken by unmanned vehicles called SAMs... but today and for the near future I see no practical UAV fighter option....

That suggests that there will be a position for a light stealthy numbers fighter... it might operate with some drones that follow it around and carry extra weapons or defensive equipment, but you still need that man in the cockpit.

Likely the drones will be unmanned versions of the 5th gen fighter anyway...

Lighter smaller but still capable 5th gen fighters make sense for carriers, and simply to fill the gaps.

The old maths of if one Flanker has twice the range it can cover twice the area of a Fulcrum is not true... the logic that 8 Flankers can cover the same area as 16 Fulcrums yet are not twice as expensive doesn't work because they have very similar flight speeds... having half as many flankers just means operationally bigger gaps between airfields... not so important in Siberia because that is unavoidable, but in western european Russia it means big gaps with no planes to fill. The Flankers could get there if they needed but it would take twice as long for the Flankers to fill those gaps because they would be taking off from further away.

For a given area two Fulcrums offer better coverage than one Flanker.

It is the same for 5th gen fighters... NATO attacks will concentrate on the airfields, so having fewer airfields is a bad thing... cruise missile and bomber attacks on targets in Russia will conversely bypass airfields and major SAM sites... so again, the more airfields you have with planes on them the better dispersed you are.

The Russians are not stupid... they know the game and would disperse their aircraft to minor fields at the start of hostilities... spreading twice as many smaller fighters makes sense... especially when ground radar and airborne radar will enhance the radar information picture of all aircraft, so the radar size on you aircraft is not so important... especially when carrying the same weapon at the same speed and altitude...

GarryB wrote:For certain roles like observation and patrol a UAV is fine.

Even for striking targets of opportunity with a UCAV make sense because if you see something worth killing the time to get an attack aircraft into the air and to the target area means the target might have left the area and opportunity missed.

And really the deep strike in enemy controlled territory is already performed by the cruise missile and to a degree the long, medium, and short range interception role can be taken by unmanned vehicles called SAMs... but today and for the near future I see no practical UAV fighter option....

That suggests that there will be a position for a light stealthy numbers fighter... it might operate with some drones that follow it around and carry extra weapons or defensive equipment, but you still need that man in the cockpit.

Likely the drones will be unmanned versions of the 5th gen fighter anyway...

Lighter smaller but still capable 5th gen fighters make sense for carriers, and simply to fill the gaps.

The old maths of if one Flanker has twice the range it can cover twice the area of a Fulcrum is not true... the logic that 8 Flankers can cover the same area as 16 Fulcrums yet are not twice as expensive doesn't work because they have very similar flight speeds... having half as many flankers just means operationally bigger gaps between airfields... not so important in Siberia because that is unavoidable, but in western european Russia it means big gaps with no planes to fill. The Flankers could get there if they needed but it would take twice as long for the Flankers to fill those gaps because they would be taking off from further away.

For a given area two Fulcrums offer better coverage than one Flanker.

It is the same for 5th gen fighters... NATO attacks will concentrate on the airfields, so having fewer airfields is a bad thing... cruise missile and bomber attacks on targets in Russia will conversely bypass airfields and major SAM sites... so again, the more airfields you have with planes on them the better dispersed you are.

The Russians are not stupid... they know the game and would disperse their aircraft to minor fields at the start of hostilities... spreading twice as many smaller fighters makes sense... especially when ground radar and airborne radar will enhance the radar information picture of all aircraft, so the radar size on you aircraft is not so important... especially when carrying the same weapon at the same speed and altitude...

Agree your reasoning regarding UAVs, but I guess the question is, when a machine can independently perform the tasks of a human with enough efficiency, flexibility and reliability to let it tackle a mission without a man in the loop? This may come so soon (at least from a purely technical point of view) that many wouldn't believe it. Probably only thing missing now is training the machines, little more than that. Policies of military are another issue...

Even when I am all for the 5th gen light Russian fighter, costs come again as a most pressing issue limiting your proposal. Your reasoning is again true but: do you think this project will be undertaken or not? For this to happen, the cost advantage of the plane (procurement + operation) times the amount of units produced + net export profit - cost development must be bigger than zero when compared to existing heavy fighters. Since the Russian air force is not that big and cannot count on many orders by means of political influence the project risk is quite big IMHO...

LMFS: Russia has th third biggest air force in the world, only counting the planes. So it is big.

GarryB: Because of these facts (2 planes are better than one) i think that Russia will buy a few MiG-35´s in the next years. All big air forces (Amiland, China, India) got a mix of heavy and light planes, Russia will not be the exception.

Regarding UCAV´s as fighters, that concept is feasible, even today. Think of them as flying air defence systems. Instead of sitting on the ground, your radar and launcher are in the air.

Hole wrote:LMFS: Russia has th third biggest air force in the world, only counting the planes. So it is big.

Yes, but is it big enough? The new project needs to pay out, and the numbers are already bleak for the PAK-FA, imagine adding an additional plane to the equation. The shared developmental costs per plane are very big. Even when many of the systems and technologies could be recycled from PAK-FA, it is a different plane with a completely new testing process. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see that but I also want to be realistic.

Hole wrote:GarryB: Because of these facts (2 planes are better than one) i think that Russia will buy a few MiG-35´s in the next years. All big air forces (Amiland, China, India) got a mix of heavy and light planes, Russia will not be the exception.

May I ask why not? How big are the expected savings derived from using a light fighter instead a heavy one?

LMFS wrote:....

Hole wrote:GarryB: Because of these facts (2 planes are better than one) i think that Russia will buy a few MiG-35´s in the next years. All big air forces (Amiland, China, India) got a mix of heavy and light planes, Russia will not be the exception.

May I ask why not? How big are the expected savings derived from using a light fighter instead a heavy one?

Savings are pretty substantial if light plane is single-engine one.

MiG-35 is not.

Keep in mind the huge number of air defense systems in russian service. Each army brigade in Russia has air defence systems combarable in strength to a whole fighter wing in the west. The land based systems can be reloaded faster and can work 24/7.

A heavy plane has its advantages. More fuel (larger radius of action). Greater combat load. Larger radar (which can mean a larger detection range). But a lighter plane is mostly cheaper to use. For some missions they are better.

The mix in Russia will propably be 80% heavy and 20% light. A regiment of lighter planes per regional command for air defence above the front and attack missions.

The MiG-35 will be an stopgap measure until the combat UCAV´s like the Okhotnik (Sukhoi, 20 tons) are ready.

PapaDragon wrote:Savings are pretty substantial if light plane is single-engine one.

MiG-35 is not.

Agree on the single engine issue, but do you have a figure or an estimation of those substantial savings? Also don't expect MiG-35 to be much cheaper to procure or operate than a heavy fighter.

Again, MiG-35 is closest to light fighter they have. Here Hole comments 80-20 for heavy-light fighters. This is clearly what is expected in coming years since they will buy the -35, but is that the force structure the VVS would freely choose if they could? With those numbers you cannot economically develop a new single engine fighter.

Hole wrote:Keep in mind the huge number of air defense systems in russian service. Each army brigade in Russia has air defence systems combarable in strength to a whole fighter wing in the west. The land based systems can be reloaded faster and can work 24/7.

A heavy plane has its advantages. More fuel (larger radius of action). Greater combat load. Larger radar (which can mean a larger detection range). But a lighter plane is mostly cheaper to use. For some missions they are better.

The mix in Russia will propably be 80% heavy and 20% light. A regiment of lighter planes per regional command for air defence above the front and attack missions.

The MiG-35 will be an stopgap measure until the combat UCAV´s like the Okhotnik (Sukhoi, 20 tons) are ready.

Agree, it will develop similar to what you say IMHO.

Maybe mixed regiments of heavy and light fighters would make for reasonable savings without the lighter fighters being dragged by shorter range radars or simpler avionics, since they would operate supported by the bigger ones.

A regiment (20 - 30) of light multi-role fighters per regional command should be enough. They will beu supplemented by more and more drones, first and foremost as bombers and in CAS/attack roles, later also as interceptors.

Hole wrote:LMFS: Russia has th third biggest air force in the world, only counting the planes. So it is big.

GarryB: Because of these facts (2 planes are better than one) i think that Russia will buy a few MiG-35´s in the next years. All big air forces (Amiland, China, India) got a mix of heavy and light planes, Russia will not be the exception.

+100 Light fighters are more destined for defense. Can do the same but just range is smaller. I am sure LMFS will be created. It is logical step. Not only TuAF but also navy (CVN) and export

Regarding UCAV´s as fighters, that concept is feasible, even today. Think of them as flying air defence systems. Instead of sitting on the ground, your radar and launcher are in the air.

taking account present state of autonomous vehicles (ok for military is a step ahead but still way to go) no way you can build autonomous fighter yet.

Who talks about autonomous? Flying air defence system with a controller on the ground. Just like any other drone, but with radar and a few AAM´s.

By the way... the S-400 can operate quasi autonomous. The radars can locate and track targets alone, all you need is someone to push the button to launch a missile.

I think it´s to late for a manned LMFS. Why build a manned plane when you got a drone in the same weight category ready for testing? In the air defence part there are already enough planes: modernised Su-27´s and MiG-31´s, Su-30, Su-35, soon the Su-57 and the MiG-35.

Hole wrote:Who talks about autonomous? Flying air defence system with a controller on the ground.

for some strange reasons nobody didnt do it yet. Technology for remote control exists already for some time. There must be the reason isnt it?

I think it´s to late for a manned LMFS. Why build a manned plane when you got a drone in the same weight category ready for testing? In the air defence part there are already enough planes: modernised Su-27´s and MiG-31´s, Su-30, Su-35, soon the Su-57 and the MiG-35.

MiG-31 - has ~ 10 years before getting retired. MiG-35 is only a stopgap for LMFS and 24 is not really the big number. Just to give MiG something to work on and potentially export contracts. . All Su-27/Mig-29 will be gradually phased out withing next 6-8 years.

Besides you wont export drones on that level to poor countries using still MiGs-21 or F-5 and this could offset investment costs. Perhaps drone and manned mode but we'll need live to see it.

Officially there is no LMFS project for Ministry of Defence

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
for some strange reasons nobody didnt do it yet. Technology for remote control exists already for some time. There must be the reason isnt it?

A tentative for a completely autonomous attack plane has been made by USN but with a subsonic all wing attack plane,actually i proved not feasible and so they have somewhat downgraded it to a tanker/reconnoissance plane.

A Fighter plane would require a much major effort, not just for manage a normal cruise, target detection and attack but also combat manoeuvering, target recognition and so on, autonomous vehicle in question would also have their own sensor and so on, remote control could merely mean adding a man-in-the-loop but not be a substitute for such capabilities.
Best idea is to made up a pocke with both manned/autonomous fighters, even with differents models.
A manned MiG-41 can made long range detection and autonomous light fighters could engage selected target in close combat.

With long range missiles a controller somewhere on the ground would be no disadvantage. Or you could use a drone as missile carrier. Like you said, marcellogo, one manned plane (MiG-31 or MiG-41) and two drone, each armed with four or more long range R-37 missiles. The plane could identify and track the targets and fire his own or the missiles from the drones.

@Hole
@marcellogo

The question was actually a rhetoric one There is simple explanation technology is simple not mature enough for such solutions. There are barely autonomous vehicles driving with low speeds on regular roads but with a plane fighting with 15g and flying 3-5Ma there is difference. Not to mention to manage a group of thereof .


However any future program F/A-XX / Bomber 2037 / PAK DA all have foreseen potential unmanned mode. Simply this is like 15-20 years ahead from now on so tech can mature :-) i wonder how do they solve vertical start :-)

Agree your reasoning regarding UAVs, but I guess the question is, when a machine can independently perform the tasks of a human with enough efficiency, flexibility and reliability to let it tackle a mission without a man in the loop?

Artificial software can make complex strategies and solve problems rapidly, but even with a limit to the number of options like Chess they are fantastic, but in the real world where the actual practical options and choices are infinite it becomes a little more gray.

Do you really want an AI fighter plane armed with weapons optimised for shooting things down to operate in any airspace?

Probably only thing missing now is training the machines, little more than that. Policies of military are another issue...

You need to train them to be humans first before you train them to be pilots... autopilots are just not good enough...

The other problem is how human do you make them?

Would an AI pilot kill people obviously at a wedding in Yemen just because the Saudis want to create chaos in that area and it was given orders to do so?

Would an AI pilot trained to follow orders no matter what kill your own men accidentally... just because they had their orders... they recognised the targets were friendly but it had its orders...

Way too many ethical issues... especially for the US because it doesn't have to just make it ethical, but special ethical where american lives matter and no one elses does... not as easy to programme as it sounds...

Even when I am all for the 5th gen light Russian fighter, costs come again as a most pressing issue limiting your proposal. Your reasoning is again true but: do you think this project will be undertaken or not? For this to happen, the cost advantage of the plane (procurement + operation) times the amount of units produced + net export profit - cost development must be bigger than zero when compared to existing heavy fighters. Since the Russian air force is not that big and cannot count on many orders by means of political influence the project risk is quite big IMHO...

Depends how things go.

Over the next two to three decades we will see how successful Russia is at finding new trade partners... many of the new ones will grow with Russia and become developed and capable on their own.

These new allies will want to buy products with no strings attached like the ones from the west, so having an advanced fighter that is cheaper to operate than an Su-57, yet offers capabilities to make it a very useful little aircraft should make it a good seller.

If the EU does not stay together and Italy wants a change, along with a few other unhappy EU countries then they might not want F-35s anymore... but all western competition to the F-35 was killed... Italy might like to join MiG and design a new 5th gen fighter themselves based on the Russian light fighter in the same way the Indians developed the Su-30MKI from the Su-30MK.

Making it carrier capable will only broaden its appeal for domestic and export use...

GarryB: Because of these facts (2 planes are better than one) i think that Russia will buy a few MiG-35´s in the next years. All big air forces (Amiland, China, India) got a mix of heavy and light planes, Russia will not be the exception.

I totally agree, but I think the Russians will keep their non stealthy fighters too, so the Su-57 will be in service, but so will the Su-35 and MiG-35... simply because not every problem needs stealth, or a big plane.

Regarding UCAV´s as fighters, that concept is feasible, even today. Think of them as flying air defence systems. Instead of sitting on the ground, your radar and launcher are in the air.

In this age of internal weapons, I see UCAVs as a tank towing a trailer with extra ammo on it... except no one has to get out of the plane to reload... it could cruise at medium altitude above the fighter, and when the fighter finds a target it can launch missiles from the UCAV flying above... the altitude and speed should maximise the reach of the missile... in fact before launch the UCAV could accelerate up in a zoom climb to maximise the range of the missile... when it is out of missiles it can return to base and rearm... and the fighter can use its own missiles or direct nearby S-400 and S-500 battery missiles to targets it is tracking...

How big are the expected savings derived from using a light fighter instead a heavy one?

In big open areas like Siberia where it is a long way between airstrips then big long range fighters make sense... in more densely populated areas however where there are plenty of airfields having more smaller aircraft makes more sense in terms of defence coverage.

Savings are pretty substantial if light plane is single-engine one.

MiG-35 is not.

That is bullshit. An F-16 is no cheaper to operate than a modern MiG-29.

Agree on the single engine issue, but do you have a figure or an estimation of those substantial savings? Also don't expect MiG-35 to be much cheaper to procure or operate than a heavy fighter.

So that would mean the most expensive to operate aircraft would be the B-52 and not any of their new stealth aircraft... I mean it has 8 engines afterall.

for some strange reasons nobody didnt do it yet. Technology for remote control exists already for some time. There must be the reason isnt it?

Maybe no one wants to have their home defences operated manually via remote control because that would likely make it too easy to jam, or worse take over.

There are barely autonomous vehicles driving with low speeds on regular roads but with a plane fighting with 15g and flying 3-5Ma there is difference. Not to mention to manage a group of thereof .

Not to mention the ethics... what happens when an automatically driven car leaves the road to avoid a collision with a truck that would likely be fatal to the passengers of the car but ends up hitting and killing pedestrians... who takes responsibility? Who gets sued? (the one with the biggest wallets of course, but who would likely be found to be guilty...)

Would be easy for the west: blame Russia!

GarryB wrote:





.  Italy might like to join MiG and design a new 5th gen fighter themselves based on the Russian light fighter in the same way the Indians developed the Su-30MKI from the Su-30MK.

Magari, dove metto la firma?

I mean, that would be an ideal win win situation, too bad too many of my compatriots, including of course the politicians are not interested in a good industrial project that would only bring advantages to the country, but prefer to be the prostitutes of England or America (in 1500 it was France or Spain).

Anyway a few years ago we built a decent land attack and air support aircraft together with Brasil (the AMX)'". Furthermore the Yak 130 and the Aermacchi MB346 started from the same project.  

If Italy would cooperate with Sukhoi or Mig for a new aircraft it would be like making one ot my hopes.a.reality