5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

GarryB wrote:

Both Kh-50 and GZUR are designed to for inside Tu-22M3 x6. I.e. size must be ~ Ks-15. However Janes says 1,600kg for  Kh-50. I guess assuming GZUR will be similar insize. Range of both (Janes) 1,500km.

So GZUR is likely a replacement for the Kh-15 Kickback then...

perhaps but Yak-38 and (mproved Yak-38m -cancelled for Yak-41) are dead for 30years.

The fault in the design stemmed from the demand that they be transonic or supersonic, and therefore were fitted with thin low drag small wings.
A large high lift wing would be much more use during landing and takeoff in the rolling takeoff and rolling landing mode... it would be dead weight in a vertical landing or takeoff but you would only takeoff or land vertically in an emergency anyway... which would make ditching fuel and weapons acceptable...

As for ideal landing what about 2 fighters lost crashing in Syria. But they were STOBAR.

The arrester gear system was faulty... when it is working the STOBAR

not sure what you are smoking now but Su-57 is onpair with MiG-35? DAT must be hard stuff. Can get one?

meh in  10 years MiG-35 will be even deader then now

Excellent... so not dead at all.

mind elaborate  how it comes that the best Russian fighter ever is almost dead an only worse Su-57 or Su-35 are still produced?

Your selective memory... all three are in production and have orders from the Russian Air Force.

Are you saying that only an expensive new 5th gen STOVL fighter aircraft could be used to control 6th gen drones that will do all the fighting in the future?
Why not control them from cheap current generation fighters... especially considering the new 5th gen Russian fighters are all single seat aircraft while the 4+++th gen fighters come in single and two seat models... which would make them even better suited to controlling drones.

Disclosed details about the engine for a lightweight fighter 5 generation



The development of the engine for the fifth generation Russian light fighter is based on the RD-33

The engine for the fifth generation lightweight fighter can be built on the basis of the RD-33, which is also installed on MiG-29 fighters. About this in an interview with "Star" said the executive director of JSC "ODK-Klimov" Alexander Vatagin.

"Historically, we are engaged in the engine for a lightweight fighter. If we talk about the work on the creation of a fifth-generation fighter, then this is a heavy fighter (Su-57 - ed.) it has potential and at its base a more modern engine can be created, which can be attributed to fifth-generation engines with a load of up to 11 tons. We are working on this, "said Vatagin.

RD-33 - twin-turbojet twin-shaft turbojet with afterburner (TRDDF). Maximum unformed for RD-33K - 5400 kgf, afterburner 8,800 kgf. The maximum thrust (during emergency take-off mode) is 9,400 kgf. The engine is installed including the latest modification of the MiG-29, MiG-35.

The creation of a fifth-generation lightweight fighter in July 2017 was announced by Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin.

Earlier, Evgeny Marchukov, General Designer-Director of the Design Bureau named after A. Lyulka, in an exclusive interview with Zvezda, said that the fifth generation engine for the Su-57 exceeds in its specific weight all analogues in the world.

In September of this year, Yury Kondratyev, deputy technical director of Komsomolsk-on-Amur Gagarin Aviation Plant, told Zvezda correspondent that the engine of the second stage was created in the same dimensions as the AL-41F1, therefore, no major modifications would be required .

In addition, he noted that this engine will also receive planes in combat units.


https://vpk.name/news/238008_raskryityi_podrobnosti_o_dvigatele_dlya_legkogo_istrebitelya_5_pokoleniya.html

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Disclosed details about the engine for a lightweight fighter 5 generation
The development of the engine for the fifth generation Russian light fighter is based on the RD-33

LMFS wrote:So Klimov also wants their portion of the 5G pie, logically. It is important to keep a healthy and diverse industrial environment, but maybe another 5G fighter engine is not the best in a strict technical/economic sense, once izd. 30 would be enough for a light fighter and it is close to being ready.

In any case, this confirms nothing regarding a light Russian 5G fighter, only that Klimov is trying to be ready for an eventual request.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:True, but is this wise to relay only on 1 model of engine? that's the other question.

LMFS wrote:So Klimov also wants their portion of the 5G pie, logically. It is important to keep a healthy and diverse industrial environment, but maybe another 5G fighter engine is not the best in a strict technical/economic sense, once izd. 30 would be enough for a light fighter and it is close to being ready.

In any case, this confirms nothing regarding a light Russian 5G fighter, only that Klimov is trying to be ready for an eventual request.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

LMFS wrote:So Klimov also wants their portion of the 5G pie, logically. It is important to keep a healthy and diverse industrial environment, but maybe another 5G fighter engine is not the best in a strict technical/economic sense, once izd. 30 would be enough for a light fighter and it is close to being ready.

In any case, this confirms nothing regarding a light Russian 5G fighter, only that Klimov is trying to be ready for an eventual request.

Sukhoi and MiG have their own suppliers, no reason to have them go rusty and go to dust, what is this the 90's? Just because YOU want a a single engine fighter, doesn't mean the VKS wants one, and I've yet to see proof otherwise.

Hole wrote:An article on Sputnik Germany says it shall be between the Yak-130 and the MiG-35 and will receive one engine.

Isos wrote:Are they stupid at mig? Every small country need a small single engine jet and they continue to develop twin engines while sukhoi takes all their client and China/USA are selling their single engine jets like little breads and taking all the clients.

If another country wants a single engine fighter then they can make an order.... right now MiG are looking at their main customer... the Russian Air Force and the Russian Air Force don't want single engined fighters.

For a jet fighter having a single engine means that engine must be bigger and much more powerful than if it had two engines.

Two engines means greater frontal area, which can increase RCS, but it can also mean tandem weapons carriage which reduces drag and RCS...

Having two jet engines does not double fuel consumption.

Having two engines means thrust vector engine performance is greatly improved because differential movement of the TVC exhausts means you can roll as well as pitch and yaw in flight in what is effectively a stall.

BTW if single engine design makes a plane cheap to operate and maintain then explain the F-35 and Gripen... both single engined aircraft and both proven to be rather more expensive to maintain than promised...

Having lots of weak useless aircraft means more manpower is wasted providing HATO with cannon fodder and would be totally pointless for Russia.

Please... France and the US make most of their money on spare parts and support contracts... and they are going to make lots of money whether the aircraft has one engine or ten.

The F-22 is a heavy 5th gen stealth fighter and the F-35 is supposed to be the cheap light fighter that the Russians are talking about in this particular contract... if their MiG entry costs 130 million US dollars it will be several times more expensive than the Su-57.

GarryB in mig-29 thread wrote:Well actually I probably would go for the MiG... first of all it is fully multirole, but being a smaller lighter aircraft it should be rather cheaper to operate than the rather bigger Su-30.

Isos wrote:Are they stupid at mig? Every small country need a small single engine jet and they continue to develop twin engines while sukhoi takes all their client and China/USA are selling their single engine jets like little breads and taking all the clients.

GarryB wrote:

Well Garry I will just quote what you said in the mig-29 thread you wrote in the same time as this answer :

Smaller and lighter can be achieved without taking out an engine and making it a single.

Of course if you make it too light it wont be able to do what you want it to do and you will need to spend more money on inflight refuelling aircraft because it won't be able to operate any reasonable distance with a payload of weapons.... it will be weapons and very short range or external fuel tanks and no weapons...

Mistake of Mig-29/35...the plane is too powerful! The gap between Mig-35 and Su-57 is not really wide. So that's why they said something between Yak-130 and Mig-35 and that makes really sense.

I disagree... its power to weight ratio is less than the Su-57. If you go for too light an aircraft you end up with something that is useless for the job.

The people saying LIFTS can double as fighters are just trying to sell more LIFTS... lead in fighter trainers are expensive so they try to justify the costs by pretending they can be fighters as well... they can't.