5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
and Su-35 tracked F-22 so what?
BTW didnt IAF cancel FGFA deal because of poor performance too?

The difference is the J-20 was picked up by radar at extreme range, the F-22 was picked up by optics much closer.

I'd appreciate sources,I've never heard about that. BTW Rafale has canards.      

Announced French aircraft have not been registered by the Russian air defence systems.

http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12171300@egNews

French MoD infographic shows it going right over our AD zone.

and what's wrong with that? stealth is not main requirement for vgen fighters in US. ISnt it?

If you want to create a VLO fighter there is plenty wrong with that.  

That's from Airbus presentation.

Airbus was not selected as prime contractor but Dassault and this is their design.

B2 is perfect example to prove you're wrong.

B2 is subsonic what is unacceptable for a fighter.  
B2 with its size and W/T = 0,2 and  is not able to maneuver. Mind that all delta UCAVs ar low speed,not maneuverable. With supersonic your observability falls drastically.

Regardless the two 6th gen stealth fighter designs from Boeing and Dassault have no canards or tailfins.  They are getting as close to a flying wing as a fighter possibly can be.  It is the stealthiest design out there.

Regardless the two 6th gen stealth fighter designs from Boeing and Dassault have no canards or tailfins.  They are getting as close to a flying wing as a fighter possibly can be.  It is the stealthiest design out there.

And the most expensive...

In one vs on scenario with tge same budget, you can have a country like france or gemany with less than 100 5th generation fighters versus a country with 100-200 mig 35 + tens of iskander + 100pantsir to intercept anything those 5th generation fighter will launch + cruise missiles to destroy enemy fighters on the ground.

I choose the second country for sure.

Without US protection all the NATO countries are fucked up against russia or china. No matter what gen of fighter they have.

France launched twelves missile out of 112 with more launch plateforms than missiles. That sucks.

And again your map is for people who have no idea where Syria is. It is impossible they took the risk to fire the missile above russian's heads. They probably went through israel or lebanon or even turkey. They have a range of 600km so they can easily go around the syrian coast. They could have launched them west of Cyprus thus being out of range of russian radars.

That infographic is pointless.

No, it didn't fly over the Russian bases. Actually, try pointing out the base within that pic. And that pics arrows show it eating up a fraction of total land, when the missiles are probably about as long as my Ford focus.

Russian ground AD without AWACS to track, can only engage such missiles roughly 20km.

And yes, Russians we're much aware of the French missiles launch, cause they mentioned it. And mentioned to having pieces of failed ones too.

Vladimir79 wrote:
The difference is the J-20 was picked up by radar at extreme range, the F-22 was picked up by optics much closer.

I've heard this vid but never heard about an actual distance. Why do you assume extreme range?
BTW Optics can see from ~100kms and tracking for Su-30 is ~ 200km max.

I'd appreciate sources,I've never heard about that. BTW Rafale has canards.      

French MoD infographic shows it going right over our AD zone [/quote]

Ekhm I believe Russian MoD more than French press (infographics was for  le parisien)      

So we have now 2 options

1) French ig is correct then
Russian radars suck. Every: S-400 , S-300 and navy radars cannot detect old canard fighter. Ergo: Russian cannot build a decent radar.


Then what Israeli F-35s are afraid of oldish S-300 delivered t Syria?      


Other possibility : No French fighters were there.

and what's wrong with that? stealth is not main requirement for vgen fighters in US. ISnt it?

If you want to create a VLO fighter there is plenty wrong with that.

 


JSF F-35 is very poor fighter but good  VLO, do you suggest then Russia should sacrifice performance for VLO?

B2 is perfect example to prove you're wrong.
B2 is subsonic what is unacceptable for a fighter.  
B2 with its size and W/T = 0,2 and  is not able to maneuver. Mind that all delta UCAVs ar low speed,not maneuverable. With supersonic your observability falls drastically.

Regardless the two 6th gen stealth fighter designs from Boeing and Dassault have no canards or tailfins.  They are getting as close to a flying wing as a fighter possibly can be.  It is the stealthiest design out there.[/quote]

As long as you dont sacrifice maneuverability I dont see canards required. Canards for me is not objective but  means to get to maneuverable fighter. Werent drones to be able to fight with 15g? Let's wait which concept wins competition. For next ~10 years we can only guess

BTW Tempes clearly has tail fins.



Lockheed concept too




Boeing FA/XX proposal (Navy fighter) has canards (image released in2013 tho)...




and now old 2015 Voyenna Prieomka from TV Zvezda. KRET singed vid. 6th gen fighter concept with ....canards




[

GunshipDemocracy wrote:I am sorry you're right. MiG-35 must bee a poor performer comparing to J-39. It is almost 50% heavier and more complex.  
Your logic is undisputed in this case

light fighters...........empty.weight

MiG-35.........................11,500.kg

J-39 Gripen....................8,000.kg


In real world however neither empty mass nor complexity are only parameter defining flight performance.  

P.S. Su-57 is 18,500kg then  barely fires 210% of J-39 empty mass !!!  

Sure, and a Su-26 much lighter than the JAS-39 and more agile.  This argument is so absurd that I cannot even honestly answer to it, sorry man!

@Vladimir79
You are ruling canards as "non stealth-compatible" and the J-20 as fake VLO based on nothing more than National Interest-level hearsay and without any physical backing, cannot take that seriously. BTW, what is VLO, exactly? It is mostly interesting that your MoD is calling that scam out as and you still taking the US propaganda for a fact. Your experts are saying the signatures from Syria confirm their estimations about Western models' RCS (0.1 to 0.5 m2 for the F-22) and you say they cannot even detect a Rafale over their heads...

By the way, from your article:

There were no cruise missiles entering the Russian AD responsibility area. The Russian air defence systems were not applied.

The Russian air defence systems at the Khmeimim and Tartus air base timely located and controlled all naval and air launches made by the USA and the UK.

Instead you believe French MoD infographic. So we infer UK Scalps can be easily detected but the French ones can dance circles around Russians heads undetected!?

If you read further you see no French air launched missiles are accounted for, so the sentence below is rather a denial that Rafale participated in the attack than a reckoning that they are invisible to Russian radars:

Announced French aircraft have not been registered by the Russian air defence systems.

Would be huge news for Dassault, really, since their planes are not alleged to be even remotely within the category of "stealth" (and have some nice canards actually!)

So back to the topic, canards are airfoils exactly as wings are, which have also moving parts and in fact more joints than the canards, some of then even on leading edges. Of course, the most stealth plane would not have canards, tails or... wings.
Out of curiosity, are the LEVCONS in Su-57 and new Airbus design also incompatible with VLO? And the leading edge flaps on F-22? What makes them so different from canards in regards of RCS?

miketheterrible wrote:That infographic is pointless.

The infographic is published by ECPAD, a division of the French MoD which makes it official.

No, it didn't fly over the Russian bases. Actually, try pointing out the base within that pic. And that pics arrows show it eating up a fraction of total land, when the missiles are probably about as long as my Ford focus.

Clearly it did.

Russian ground AD without AWACS to track, can only engage such missiles roughly 20km.

The A-50 was up all day and night.

And yes, Russians we're much aware of the French missiles launch, cause they mentioned it. And mentioned to having pieces of failed ones too.

Our MoD said they did not detect them, it is not surprising since they are stealth terrain hugging missiles.

Vladimir79 wrote:[

Our MoD said they did not detect them, it is not surprising since they are stealth terrain hugging missiles.

so in you opinion Russians cannot make any decent radars. And French are so marvelous that 80s fighters are undetected ? wow

LMFS wrote:Sure, and a Su-26 much lighter than the JAS-39 and more agile.  This argument is so absurd that I cannot even honestly answer to it, sorry man!

I dotn take it personally i just think you've lost in your reasoning. Onetime you say T/W counts (what is true but not only), then you say VSTOL   is heavier that the same fighter without VSOTL ability (what is true) then you are reasoning : because F-35 is mad ein 2 versions VSTOL has alwasy suck.


Yes lets stop here.      

You clearly cannot mentally digest that VSTOL can be maneuverable at the same level then comparable class fighter with CTOL (No, F-35 is the same model not comparable)

BTW  LMFS is ever comes true unlikely will be 5gen.  in all cournties 2030s is time of 6th gen. Whoever (LM, Boeing or KRET has been  talking about 6gen you can hear repeatable stuff:
they say long range, speed, lasers/microwaves ,
hypersonic with  with 2Ma+ supercuise
"couple times  greater" overload.

This all implies new super-complexity, gen engines,    Heavier then current weight fighters  and with super maneuverability.  


Perhaps in one you're right tho.       The real program VSTOL amid 6th gen requirements might not be light after all

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

so in you opinion Russians cannot make any decent radars. And French are so marvelous that 80s fighters are undetected ? wow

I am going off of what the MoD said, they weren't detected. If you don't believe it argue with them.

Vladimir79 wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

so in you opinion Russians cannot make any decent radars. And French are so marvelous that 80s fighters are undetected ? wow

I am going off of what the MoD said, they weren't detected.  If you don't believe it argue with them.  

I'm not going to argue with French propaganda. French argumentation doesn't hold water to me.  If A-50/ S-400 radars were there there is no way Rafale could not be seen.
It  is enough to look to historical Israel/US reaction on old S-300 delivered to Syria. Why that all fuss? or only Rafale are invisible other fighters are?

OK let's agree to disagree. French story to me is unreliable.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
I'm not going to argue with French propaganda. French argumentation doesn't hold water to me.  If A-50/ S-400 radars were there there is no way Rafale could not be seen.
It  is enough to look to historical Israel/US reaction on old S-300 delivered to Syria. Why that all fuss? or only Rafale are invisible other fighters are?

OK let's agree to disagree. French story to me is unreliable.

Take off your blinders. It wasn't the French MoD that said they weren't detected. It was the Russian MoD.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:I dotn take it personally i just think you've lost in your reasoning. Onetime you say T/W counts (what is true but not only), then you say VSTOL   is heavier that the same fighter without VSOTL ability (what is true) then you are reasoning : because F-35 is mad ein 2 versions VSTOL has alwasy suck.

Good, because I don't mean it personally. But you are so deep in denial that cannot even understand the gross logical contradictions you are incurring in order to defend your dear STOVL concept.

Take the Yak-141. Now remove the engines for vertical lift and put fuel in its place. Would the range not be more and the empty weight less, for God's sake???

Vladimir79 wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
I'm not going to argue with French propaganda. French argumentation doesn't hold water to me.  If A-50/ S-400 radars were there there is no way Rafale could not be seen.
It  is enough to look to historical Israel/US reaction on old S-300 delivered to Syria. Why that all fuss? or only Rafale are invisible other fighters are?

OK let's agree to disagree. French story to me is unreliable.

Take off your blinders.  It wasn't the French MoD that said they weren't detected.  It was the Russian MoD.  

Yet Russian mod said that French, US and UK missiles were shot down.

So how can they say they were shot down, if they didn't see them at all?

https://sputniknews.com/military/201804141063558487-syria-air-defense-forces-analysis/

I think they are referring to the claims the jets potential launches. They saw the missiles. And France is lying about their jets.

Vladimir79 wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
I'm not going to argue with French propaganda. French argumentation doesn't hold water to me.  If A-50/ S-400 radars were there there is no way Rafale could not be seen.
It  is enough to look to historical Israel/US reaction on old S-300 delivered to Syria. Why that all fuss? or only Rafale are invisible other fighters are?

OK let's agree to disagree. French story to me is unreliable.

Take off your blinders.  It wasn't the French MoD that said they weren't detected.  It was the Russian MoD.  

I never heard or read from Russian MoD that they didn't detect the incoming CM! The assault was known to Russian MoD hours before!

Really Mirage2000 is soo stealth that A-50, S-300 and S-400 couldn't detect it? By the way...engagement range of Scalp/Storm Shadow is 450 km, so hard to track the planes for ground based radar, but should be no problem for A-50. The RCS of Rafale is not that low and Mirage2000 should be clear visible!!! By the way...Rafale has the characteristic that to US-Experts make "stealth" really complicated...Canards!

Rafale has a RCS of 1,25 sqm, it's not bad but not really "stealth". It is said that Rafale can "lower" it's RCS with EW equiptment, but come on with good EW you can make Mig 21 the deadliest stealth plane. And it's not known how the EW equiptment works on newest Russian AD Systems, that should be resistent to EW.

But what is clearly known to me ist that Russian PR of MoD is catastrophic, because the same source produce different facts and stories! Sometimes I think they write faster, than they think o.O Best example is with the shot down Il-20, first they said it was a syrian missile, later they blather something about a french ship firing missiles (yes it was a test, but had nothing to do with Il-20), but it was the fault of Israel (LOL still a syrian missile) .
At all too many stories makes statements from Russian MoD too often implausible!!!

If Russian AD Systems are really soo bad, US and western allies would have bombed the shit out of russian presence in Syria hundred times right now, they know a conflict here will have really no results on global scale. In reality western countries are really careful in their strikes in Syria,but acting more and more aggressive, testing out russian capabilities. And if S-300 is that shity too, Israel would no be concerned about deliveries to Syria.

Vladimir79 wrote: Take off your blinders.  It wasn't the French MoD that said they weren't detected.  It was the Russian MoD.  

likewise Sir, and only French MoD said they were there. Am I right? Russian MoD said there were not detected. And I believe them. You cannot detect something that simply s not there.

@Azi were you a physicist or something right?

perhaps you could tell me why KRET guy said for Tass that microvave guns can be used only by drones (more precise fighters in drone mode) because it is dangerous for pilots?

LMFS wrote:Take the Yak-141. Now remove the engines for vertical lift and put fuel in its place. Would the range not be more and the empty weight less???

it would of course!  I never claimed otherwise. This is a trade-off with other qualities. That is what Ive always meant.


and now please tell me
Can one make a maneuverable fighter with good flight characteristics ?

LMFS wrote: Good, because I don't mean it personally.

Glad to hear it, Sir. DAT would be if I go personal     





[

GunshipDemocracy wrote:and now please tell me
Can one make a maneuverable fighter with good flight characteristics ?

The answer is yes, did you need my help for that?

BTW, in regards of VLO and in news from today:

Speaking to Sputnik, defense observers suggested that there is little doubt that the US Air Force would like to use this opportunity to learn more about the S-300s in the field using the F-22, a plane specially created to suppress and destroy high-tech air defenses. However, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they will actually have the freedom to do so, Sergei Sudakov, a professor at the Academy of Military Sciences, said.

“The US strategy of using Raptors against air defense networks looks something like this: One or several F-22s enter undetected into the enemy’s radar coverage area, switch on their electronic suppression systems and start jamming enemy detection and guidance systems. At the same time, the planes carry out strikes against radars, launchers and command posts,” the academic explained.

“Following the breakthrough, a second echelon of fighter-bombers is activated to complete the rout of enemy forces. Paralyzed by the stealth attacks, the enemy air defenses are no longer able to put up any resistance. But such operations seem smooth only on paper,” Sudakov noted.

According to the expert, even if the ground-based radars do not see the F-22s, the plane will still make its presence known as soon as turns on its on-board radio-electronic suppression system. Once that happens, ground-based control systems will be able to localize the radiation source, subsequently pointing to the aircraft’s location and launching an anti-aircraft missile to chase after it.

In this scenario, the only thing a Raptor pilot can do in complete safety is to determine the approximate zone of operation of enemy air defenses. But these, in the case of the S-300s, are mobile systems, and can quickly move and deploy in a new location. In that sense, there is no such thing as a completely invisible aircraft.

“The F-22’s low radar visibility is a fact,” military journalist Mikhail Khodaryonok, a 29 year veteran of the Soviet and Russian air defenses, said.

“But suggesting that this aircraft is invisible to the S-300’s radar systems is a huge exaggeration. In the S-band frequency, it truly is barely visible, which, on the other hand, does not exclude the possibility of firing on it. In the VHF band frequency, for instance, the Raptor can be seen very well,” the retired colonel stressed.

miketheterrible wrote:

Yet Russian mod said that French, US and UK missiles were shot down.

So how can they say they were shot down, if they didn't see them at all?

https://sputniknews.com/military/201804141063558487-syria-air-defense-forces-analysis/

I think they are referring to the claims the jets potential launches. They saw the missiles. And France is lying about their jets.

Russian MoD said the French were not detected nor were any of their missiles crossing our AD. We never saw them to shoot them down. There were Syrian casualties at the strike site West of Homs so they did hit their target. What MoD said was we detected US and UK launches, what the Syrians shot down are only claims from Syria. They were not connected to our IADs as that is only just happening after the Il-20 incident.

Back to the topic, how many time would mig need to design a fighter that takes everything from the mig-35 but with a stealth design and a small weapon bay for 2 or 3 r-77 and stealthier hardpoints for external missiles that would be semi-stealth, like those on mig-31 for r-33 that keeps half of the missile "inside" the plane. Or at least keep the missile closer to the wing istead of leting it 30-40 cm bellow the plane with actual missile pods. R-73 could be kept externally as they are not huge so no huge rcs and future short range missile will be much cleaner than r-73.


I can't understand them. They presented mig-35 in 2006 and in 2018 they have something similar to a mig 29 in terms of external design. They clearly don't work enough while they could have done a realy nice and cheap stealth plane. And mig-29 is not that hard to be transformed into a stealth design since it is a really simple design. For export it is important to work on every aspects m. "Reducing" rcs from mig-29 isn't enough.

Isos wrote:Back to the topic, how many time would mig need to design a fighter that takes everything from the mig-35 but with a stealth design and a small weapon bay for 2 or 3 r-77 and stealthier hardpoints for external missiles that would be semi-stealth, like those on mig-31 for r-33 that keeps half of the missile "inside" the plane. Or at least keep the missile closer to the wing istead of leting it 30-40 cm bellow the plane with actual missile pods. R-73 could be kept externally as they are not huge so no huge rcs and future short range missile will be much cleaner than r-73.


I can't understand them. They presented mig-35 in 2006 and in 2018 they have something similar to a mig 29 in terms of external design. They clearly don't work enough while they could have done a realy nice and cheap stealth plane. And mig-29 is not that hard to be transformed into a stealth design since it is a really simple design. For export it is important to work on every aspects m. "Reducing" rcs from mig-29 isn't enough.

For the time being Russia apparently bets on the MiG-35. A light fighter must be as economical as possible and stealth is exactly the opposite. If you add that even the West band is loosing faith in it, I would agree that extracting the most from the very capable 4G airframes with modern avionics without caring too much for stealth is the most reasonable solution. If and when a new fighter is to be developed I wouldn't base it on the MiG-29 but would make it smaller, lighter and more advanced aerodynamically.

US bet everything on stealth. That's why f-35 sucks and f-22 is so expensive.

When I say a stealth design, I mean the geometry of the design, a small weapon bay for air to air missiles and use of simple composite materials to achieve low observability, rcs less than 1m2. And keep external weapons for more missile and air to ground weapons.

With stand off weapons you just need to reduce the range at which radars will detect you. That's why radale is so good.

I don't think making the mig 29 stealth, like on the picture shared here, with geometry alignement and a small weapon bay between engine would affect its aerodynamics.

Mig-29 was design without computers. Now they can test different design on computers to make it stealth and manoeuvrable (could even be more than mig29).

GunshipDemocracy wrote:@Azi  were you a physicist or something right?      

perhaps you could tell me why KRET guy said for Tass that microvave guns can be used only by drones (more precise fighters in drone mode)  because it is dangerous for pilots?

I'm chemist

Normally microwave guns based on MASER (microwave analogue to LASER) are only huge and consume a lot of power. The beam is focused and it's not dangerous for people who are not standing in the path of the beam. The device itself is of course isolated! In the path of beam you have more or less a lot of problems, depending on the power and wavelength. With today technology you have to built a plane around the MASER, like the A-10 was literally built around the main gun, because for a really powerful engine...maybe a pilot would make the plane too huge and complex!
There are microwave weapons not based on MASER technology.

Maybe it's easier to built a drone for a microwave weapon, than to built a microwave weapon pod for a real fighter!?

Microwaves are between radio waves and infrared light. Many AESA radars are working in the area of microwaves and AESA is a powerful tool for EW. Powerful AESA is no problem for pilots, why should a directed beam created by a isolated pod be a problem?

Best example for a good microwave weapon is Krasukha-4! X-Band radar is official microwave (beginning from 1 GHz). Krasukha-4 working with multiband is soo powerful, that it barbecues the electronic of enemy missile, plane, satellite etc!

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:and now please tell me
Can one make a maneuverable fighter with good flight characteristics ?

The answer is yes, did you need my help for that?

Of course   I did. Finally you've  admitted VSTOL can fly and well        




@LMFS && ISOS

Im afraid Russia doesnt bet on MiG-35. There is good fighter, ith 30-40% cheaper flyaway cost. Yet this is still a legacy design. There is waste of money to invest in this taking not account limited resources. Especially that new designs are on the move. In 2030s 80s designs will start to be massively retired (F-18, Eurfighter, Rafale)

IMHO MiG-35 is just a stopgap if VSTOL (if this will be light) is delayed. Perhaps those 6 procured is just to test and help in export contracts? 2021 when Iran can start buying fighters is less than 2 years ahead... Perhaps also India?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:and now please tell me
Can one make a maneuverable fighter with good flight characteristics ?

The answer is yes, did you need my help for that?

Of course   I did. Finally you've  admitted VSTOL can fly and well        

VSTOL sucks. Only advantage is that it can take off vertically. And when you look at how to operate them you still need a pretty big carrier, be it helicopter or aircraft carrier. So better put a little bit more money and buy a real carrier with fighters already produced and much better than any vstol. At least you save money by not designing a flying pig similar to yak-38, f-35 or harrier.

All other parameter are better for normal fighters.All.

Edit: I should have said "flying diamond pig" as the maintenance of such aircraft are just amazingly expensive. F-22 will look really cheap compared to f-35. Dev is already much more expensive than they thought