5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

GarryB wrote:And how many countries around the world have actually implemented such a scheme....

Ironically Russia is the only country making stealth fighters as cheap as western large drones... but even for them it would not make sense to make 50-60 million dollar manned Su-57s and 40-50 million dollar unmanned S-57s.

I would suggest the only sensible reason for being able to fly them unmanned is when the enemy has given up the F-35s and F-15s and F-22s and Rafales and Typhoons as just being too expensive and they start using unmanned drones that can pull enormous g that a manned fighter simply can't match in a dogfight...

but even then the manned fighters of today would be of no use because the aircraft are designed for humans so are not intended for more than 9 g... just taking the man out does not make them able to match a drone designed for high g manouvering.

The point is that a drone based on a platform designed to carry a human wont have the control surface limits and structure to pull much more g than it does and flying high or low g limit is more about speed than altitude... the transition from WWI biplanes to high speed mono planes of WWII was such a shock because in slow little biplanes it would not be possible to turn hard enough to pull more than 4-5g and the speed would bleed off so quickly you couldn't maintain it.

With modern transonic and supersonic drones enormous g can be achieved easily and quickly... a 5 g turn at subsonic speeds can become a 15 g turn at mach 2.

That is very true, but a whole section of the aircraft is dedicated for containing that pilot and keeping him safe while offering him a view of the world and a view of the information collected by sensors and other platforms.

Replacing analog dial instruments with digital instruments and CRT displays... note that is cathode ray tube displays... not much lighter LCD ones in the MiG-29M from 1988 reduced the weight of the cockpit by 500kgs... the ejection seat weighs 250kgs and includes survival equipment and other bits and pieces too and 100kg for the pilot himself... not to mention the weight of the canopy, which is quite heavy compared with aluminium structure.

The point is that the oxygen system and the cooling and heating systems to give him a comfortable operating environment all add up in weight and cost... that would be wasted in a drone design.

I am not disputing that, what I am saying is that basing a drone on a manned version is just stupid, because from a design perspective a manned platform makes a lot of compromises that are not needed in an unmanned drone.

Take an MPA... is a drone replacement going to look like an Orion or a Tu-142 or P-8?

Surely you would save lots of money making an MPA drone based on the current manned model.... that is what you are saying for fighters.

There is an argument that fighters don't need to be super manouverable...

Who cares about the transition...

you will rapidly find your dual manned and unmanned fighter is at an enormous disadvantage to a custom designed unmanned one.

Ask yourself why the S-70 and other fighter support drones don't look like current generation fighters... they essentially perform a bomb truck role with air to ground or air to air missiles.... an extra set of eyes and extra munitions for the job.

What a stupid thing to say or suggest.

You don't also need to be very intelligent to recognise this suggestion is coming from the company that makes the damn engine and would have it running vacuum cleaners and washing machines too.

MiG works with Klimov and not Saturn and I would expect Klimov probably has a few engines in mind for the LMFS and the MiG-41.

I am sure they probably thought the MiG-29 should have had a single Al-31 as its power supply, which might have worked fine, but they would not be selling them to China and Pakistan like they are with the RD-93 they do sell.

You can say that but how about we wait until someone actually achieves it in the real world before we accept it could be true.

So the single engined MiG-29 has 75.22kN dry and 122.6kN full AB, while the twin engined actual MiG-29 with RD-33s has 98.84kN in dry thrust and 163.16kN in full AB.

More to the point when the Al-31 gets an improvement that increases the thrust by 1,000kgs, and the RD-33s get improvements that also increase thrust by 1,000kgs, having two engines means the single engined MiG gains 1 ton of extra thrust, but the twin engined MiG gains 2 tons extra thrust.

UEC Saturn... a jet engine maker. Surely they would show the MiG-41 and LMFS with Klimov engines too just to be fair and honest...

Their other possible customer for this RD-33MK sequel would be Pakistan.
But by that time the Chinese will likely have the WS-19 engine in production

You are moving the goalposts, the question was whether this was a pipe dream or something sustained by engineering, I demonstrated it is the second

Odds are that a Su-35 is RUB2B, Su-57 RUB3B, Okhotnik RUB1B. Not cheap for a subsonic bomb truck, even when it is single engine. How much more expensive do you think a 5G light fighter would be?

Easy then, fly higher and avoid high g turns.

UAVs with huge wings to sustain the g you keep on suggesting would suck major time at high speed.

What makes you think the Su-57 for instance is necessarily limited to 9 g?

The drone capable of sustaining and actually using much higher g will be much heavier and way slower because of the big wings. I have already explained this

What is the aero / propulsion / altitude combination needed to make 15 g at 2 M?? Do you even realize what you are saying?

The avionics for making the plane autonomous takes some space too.

In any case you will probably add some fuel (not even 1 t) to the unmanned version, slightly improved aero and that's it. It is very nice, but it does not mean an unmanned plane si going to be half the size with the same range and payload.

I would like some sources for that... for instance the installed weight of a Zvezda K-36 is 100 kg. My point above stands.

Not wasted, you just need to design with the two versions in mind and remove all unnecessary items in the unmanned one, substituting them with the additional avionics needed plus additional fuel.

Says GarryB the internet authority, correcting Rostec?

Has the Orion the payload and range of the others?

You are the one saying AEW drones cannot substitute manned AWACS BTW...

You are being disingenuous. It would be absurd to make a huge fuselage for carrying people when there is no people on board. That is a far cry from the crew factor o a fighter

Yes, that is a BS argument defended by F-35 salesmen and by you...

Professionals responsible for air force operational planing do care a lot about that. Do you not understand why?

No, it is just you imagining magical capacities to unmanned drones, completely oblivious of physical realities.

Regardless, just look and see this manned / unmanned becoming the new normal.

Being civil is not a bad habit for an admin.

Again, it comes from UEC. And the only 5G engine they have is izd. 30. Maybe if you give them the money, the engineers and the capabilities needed, they will build you the 5G Klimov you want.

Sure they have, do they also fancy Saturn making turboprop and helo engines to compete with them?

It is for UEC to decide what company specialises in what type of engines, otherwise the holding will turn into a circus.

On the contrary, I am sure a lighter MiG-29 with one AL-31 would be in high demand even now.

Agreed. Until then, this is the best we have, and it looks damn good

RD-33 is not half the thrust of the AL-31, it makes no sense to substitute two of them with one AL

Again, this is signed by UEC, not Saturn for god's sake... all the bureaus are represented in that presentation.

GarryB wrote:But will that WS-19 engine be good enough or will it still be inferior to the RD-33, while an new and improved more powerful model with better fuel efficiency that is more reliable and longer life...

Not really. You are interpreting the idea that their next gen fighters can be manned or unmanned as meaning in lieu of drones that operate with fighters they will just buy double the number of fighters.

I am suggesting that would be not practical because of the cost of such drones and the fact that a design with a human on board is going to differ quite radically from one intended to be unmanned.

I don't, but with the little information released so far being able to exceed 9 g has not been mentioned, and besides if there is a pilot on board going beyond 9g makes little sense as the pilot would not be a functioning actor in such a case.... they would just be struggling to retain consciousness...

Your assumptions... what if it achieves its manouverability through thrust vectoring and relatively small control surfaces and lift devices?

Are you saying it is impossible?

With modern auto pilots becoming rather sophisticated and the flight controls being more like force feedback digital joysticks, I would say no... remote signals replicating input to digital controls via the autopilot system.... shouldn't be a problem... and should become easier as aircraft and land vehicles become more digital and computer controlled.

That is exactly why I am saying making manned aircraft also drones does not make sense and that drones should be custom designed from the outset to be unmanned and for their specific job...

There is no right or wrong for them.... they are selling a product and trying to get a contract... in fact they are trying to get two contracts... light 5th gen fighter and light 5th gen drone...

Well obviously the Orion is not an MPA it is a MALE, but if they wanted to use it as an MPA they could revise the design rather more efficiently and effectively without starting with the manned version and replacing the human areas with extra fuel like you are suggesting.

Please tell me you are joking.... no AEW platform can substitute an AWACS manned or otherwise... airborne early warning and airborne warning and control are different things.

Making unmanned platforms based directly on manned models ignores all the potential improvements in design that eliminating the manned element from the equation can achieve.

you are not going to be reverting them back and forth between being manned and unmanned.

But supermanouverability doesn't mean much if he can just look and lock and fire a missile as you approach each other and get a kill without even turning.

Supermanouverability does not mean being able to dodge missiles, and requires very serious compromises in the design of the aircraft.

If manned fighters become obsolete then they are already designing and testing drones...

So if unmanned drones can't be made any better than manned aircraft WTF are we talking about... manned or unmanned Su-57s... it clearly makes no difference except where the pilot sits.

What makes you think Klimov is sitting on its arse waiting for Saturn engines to be ready to put in planes?

Do you not think they are working on their own engine designs?

So LMFS is now Saturns turf and MiG has to stop working with Klimov for medium and light fighter engine designs and they have to work with Saturn.

Just because you like the idea of a single engined fighter does not mean the Russian AF has approved of the idea.

and don't be a dick... circuses can be fun...

It looks like the Boeing attempt at the JSF programme... it is hideous.

By moving it into a slightly heavier weight class it means it can carry more fuel and weapons than it would otherwise be carrying...

Then why are only Saturn products shown?

It says UEC because that is the org Saturn works within but unless you have evidence otherwise to show this is gospel it is just a slide show pretending what if.

What is clear is that for China, using Russian engines for their export planes makes quite little sense.

I am saying UCAVs doing the same function of fighters will be very similar to fighters.

And again I am not making things up, this is what every manufacturer out there is saying for their news generation fighters.

You need to provide some evidence to your argument, until now there is no technical reasoning and only your opinion that drone = cheap.

But you insist that the critical aspect in a 20 t plane is the 100 kg pilot and maybe 500 kg of extra associated weight and equipment. It simply makes no sense.

In any case the design value of 9 g is just your assumption, not anything supported by any proof.

That is the problem, you don't understand how manouverability is achieved. You need LIFT at the CoG to turn a plane, it depends on the WINGS mainly, TVC is almost useless in that regard.

That is why planes cannot achieve more than a fraction of their design g at high altitude,

So it is not like removing the pilot is going to turn aircraft in 30 g machines at any altitude. Get that out of your mind, it does no work like that.

If your drone is a missile, not. Then the UCAV name is not the most correct. Think about the propulsive needs of the aircraft you are referring and what range / persistence it will have.

In any case we agree there would probably be a net increase of available internal space / weight reduction.

Listen, you need to provide some argument about what is the reason for those statements?

The space for the pilot and associated equipment would be freed for fuel or avionics. What else would you change? Be concrete please.

The problem is when you put words in my mouth that I have never said, like proposing to design an unmanned MPA based on an flying bus like the B737.

And what does the layout of a plane designed for carrying people has to do with a fighter where the human payload is just 100 kg and a tinny fraction (2-5%) of the internal volume?

I don't know what supremely elevated function the guys inside an AWACS fulfil in your mind that AI + networking cannot cover in the future.

Ok name the improvements

No, you would start deploying the VKS a limited amount of unmanned platforms (say 1:1 or even fully manned) and as the fleet of that aircraft increases, you can progressively transition to higher unmanned numbers, and have maybe 3:1 unmanned to manned relationship, with the advantage that they would have sensibly better performance, derived from the differences I listed above.

Firing backwards against a target that can turn and accelerate quite fast and with the missile having to acquire the target after launch is not the same as doing it forward against a sloppy plane that your missile has already locked on.

And we are not talking only about WVR, manouverability counts in every phase of the engagement.

It seems your are sitting squarely on the USAF / F-35 side in that regard indeed.

Why would Russia develop the Su-57 they way they did, if what you say is true?

Why to scrap your manned fleet and replace it with the unmanned one, when you can create a manned / unmanned platform and deploy it in a smart way like proposed above?

The main benefit is that it becomes attritable and less prone to human failures.

An unmanned platform is not going to be cheaper, by any significant measure, for a plane with the characteristics of a Su-57.

If among the consolidation and rationalization efforts ongoing in Rostec you think they are going to allow everyone to develop such an expensive engine on their own initiative, you have not been paying too much attention.

I don't know, I just say what the presentation states. There is a twin engined plane there two, BTW.

I actually think it is much prettier, by a serious margin.

X-35 was a rushed prototype and it definitely did not look very pretty. The idea was not bad though, considering the requirements.

After literally years you have not been able to produce a shred of evidence of your claim that twin engine = powerful, singe engine = underpowered, and refuse the proof that I provided in that F-16 and MiG-29 have essentially the same TWR and ranges, actually with advantage for the F-16.

Of course this is not 100% sure, but I guess we agree it is like 1 trillion times more valuable than our conjectures

LMFS wrote:Agreed. Until then, this is the best we have, and it looks damn good

LMFS wrote:I see, you think they are ugly because of the very mature reason that they look like faces with big mouths to you? Maybe your set of criteria is unrelated to what makes for a good plane in real life

LMFS wrote:I am sure you are too...

LMFS wrote:I see, you think they are ugly because of the very mature reason that they look like faces with big mouths to you? Maybe your set of criteria is unrelated to what makes for a good plane in real life:

That is writing a lot for not advancing much. You still have not said what is different in the purpose built fighter UCAV from the manned one, only "they have more g" as if that meant anything apart from a stiffer and heavier structure, and you can play around with layout, without understanding that it is going to be essentially the same.

The only reasonable change I can think of is the STOVL layout I proposed, there not having the pilot at the front would help a lot for a lifting fan, otherwise either propose something concrete or stop building your arguments on empty claims and wishful thinking.

> TVC has nothing to do with g forces, again it just points the nose but does not provide the lift needed to actually turn the velocity vector of the plane.

> We don't know what the ultimate structural overload limit of the Su-57 is

> Overload of a fighter at anything but low altitude is lift and not pilot limited,

> MiG-25 at altitude creates ridiculous amounts of g force, because it has a huge wing load

> A fast missile cannot be "outturned" by a biplane because it does not "pursuit" the target, but trivially hits it due to incomparably different speeds. The target cannot separate from the interception point fast enough, it is quasi static compared to the missile

> As to the new F-16 vs F-18 comparison, once the MiG-29 did not serve your purpose to prove the intrinsic superiority of the twin engine, I am afraid the F-18 is actually a way worse rival:

The Viper can out-accelerate most anything in the air, including the Hornet.

drag race, the Hornet would be no match for the Viper.

The best climb angle that I could get out of the Hornet before airspeed started to decay was 45 degrees, and I leveled off with 200 knots; the Viper's climb took one minute less.

You still forget the translation of thrust into performance is called excess power and the F-16 trounces almost any plane in that regard, because it has an extremely small cross sectional area and drag, coupled with a big engine. If it had an engine equivalent to the F135 (scaled down with the same technology) the figures would make any pilot cry.

I see, you think they are ugly because of the very mature reason that they look like faces with big mouths to you? Maybe your set of criteria is unrelated to what makes for a good plane in real life:

It has the design of a cargo plane rather than a fighter jet.

....Which come to think of it 'grabbing low hanging fruit' and 'busting your balls' sounds a bit weird in context together. Suspect I respect your posts as a whole (your among the better members on the forum), but sometimes you just got to let the joke run it's course.

I take no shit in regards of single engine fighters with ventral intake magnumcromagnon, make jokes with anything else but that

Please keep it short as some things you write are interestingn and adds value but gets lost in your novels.

most beautiful proofs are short and sweat as they are usually simple and efficient.

GarryB wrote:What I am saying, and hinting at above is that unmanned fighter drones should not be limited to the shapes and designs of current manned fighters.

So it makes no sense because you can't imagine it... how about fully articulated wings that can not just change profile/curve, but change width... big wide curved wings for takeoff and thin narrow wings for low drag flight...

Any change in flight direction creates a g force as the aircraft changes direction but feels the force of inertia in the direction it was travelling in to keep going that way.

Of course we don't, and ultimately any drone made out of the air frame can be reinforced to improve performance...

So you keep saying but I am not agreeing.

Well actually it all depends on where the biplane is in the missiles field of view when it starts looking for its target... if the biplane can travel to the edge of the engagement box of the missile the missile will have to turn hard to get the plane into its field of view... if the biplane is already travelling in a direction that forces the missile to turn even harder the missiles control surfaces might stall and the missile miss.

I said twin engined aircraft have more thrust and both of my examples prove it.

Claiming there is only one design possible is shortsighted

LMFS wrote:

Don't pontificate about open mindedness, it is you saying it needs to be twin engine because single engine = bad.

gbu48098 wrote:I actually think only reason for twin engine is more power and adds a bit of future proofing in terms of upgrades and weapon layouts but in actuality max loads are rarely used except under extreme scenarios or demonstrations. Single engines (just engines in theory) are cheaper by close to 30% in direct costs and maintenance and but they may not be in reality but that is a different topic why they are not. Reliability in having twin engines is thin argument, if your engine is half dead in combat, your odds are exponentially less in surviving as more likely you would eject. Training and other scenarios are different. TVC is not to the level to impact g changes, it is a trick to outdo in dog fighting when it comes to it or escape a SAM....More and more future seems to go back to earlier days where numbers made differences. With extended BVR, stealth and AD between equal powers, it would be the one with more numbers and the one clever enough to field a cheap but effective light fighter. Drones fit somewhere in that context...

LMFS wrote:

gbu48098 wrote:I actually think only reason for twin engine is more power and adds a bit of future proofing in terms of upgrades and weapon layouts but in actuality max loads are rarely used except under extreme scenarios or demonstrations. Single engines (just engines in theory) are cheaper by close to 30% in direct costs and maintenance and but they may not be in reality but that is a different topic why they are not. Reliability in having twin engines is thin argument, if your engine is half dead in combat, your odds are exponentially less in surviving as more likely you would eject. Training and other scenarios are different. TVC is not to the level to impact g changes, it is a trick to outdo in dog fighting when it comes to it or escape a SAM....More and more future seems to go back to earlier days where numbers made differences. With extended BVR, stealth and AD between equal powers, it would be the one with more numbers and the one clever enough to field a cheap but effective light fighter. Drones fit somewhere in that context...

Most new 5G fighters in development by "regional powers" are middle sized, twin engine with the "default" F-22 layout. Which is an easy, low risk undertaking valid for developing military powers but has until now not proven to be capable of delivering a single platform with the bay capacity for proper fulfilment of A2G roles, due to the swallow and short bays, and bad use of the plane's cross sectional area. Had Russia done the same instead of going the hard way with the PAK-FA, they would have another piece of junk, already surpassed before entering service, and not able as a multirole fighter. They instead created a plane with outstanding payload capability, superior supercruising, maneuverability, range, sensor integration etc., which is driving the requirements of their rivals for new platforms (speed, payload, range) and throwing their existing programs directly in the trash bin. What good is doing some half arsed PAK-FA, when you have the real thing already, and forcing you to create new engines for a plane with essentially the same costs, but worse capabilities? Go for a really different fighter profile, go for really reduced costs, go for the export markets, and save big using the same engine, equipment and technologies. I do believe (not out of thin air, but because I actually took the time to make the check  in a 3D design) a small single engined plane with one izd. 30 can have more or less half the bay capacity of the Su-57, if an ambitious, non conventional, well thought layout is used. But well, we will see what is decided in the end, it seems in Russia both options are being considered, as it should be.

As to TVC, it has many nice uses, but not what GarryB is saying. It just pitches the nose, is not going to hold the plane when the air is too thin for the wings to create the needed lift at the CoG.

You are stubbornly taking for granted they will be different but have absolutely nothing to back it up, that is the issue.

I am being concrete instead of using magical thinking like you. And BTW, what has the manned / unmanned topic to do with that wing feature?

Only if there is enough lift available for the plane to actually turn, which is a big problem in thin air. You are still not getting it...

Exactly so what is the problem to use the same airframe of the manned plane?

Still not getting it? It cannot move fast enough to leave the field of view of the missile, if the guidance is properly done. Think escaping from a motorcycle at 120 kmh on a truck at 30 kmh, does it make any sense to you?

Your very poor answers to the evidence that F-16 clearly surpasses the Hornet in terms of kinematics is just you deciding to scrap the discussion completely, so be it.

Don't pontificate about open mindedness, it is you saying it needs to be twin engine because single engine = bad.

Reliability in having twin engines is thin argument, if your engine is half dead in combat,

With extended BVR, stealth and AD between equal powers, it would be the one with more numbers and the one clever enough to field a cheap but effective light fighter.

Most new 5G fighters in development by "regional powers" are middle sized, twin engine with the "default" F-22 layout.

Which is an easy, low risk undertaking valid for developing military powers but has until now not proven to be capable of delivering a single platform with the bay capacity for proper fulfilment of A2G roles, due to the swallow and short bays, and bad use of the plane's cross sectional area.

As to TVC, it has many nice uses, but not what GarryB is saying. It just pitches the nose, is not going to hold the plane when the air is too thin for the wings to create the needed lift at the CoG.

F-22 is not crap and it is designed when they thought Russia would not exist or pose a threat and mostly will be used to take out 2nd or 4th rated powers ground radars in stealth and then its open hunting. Best american engineers are replaced by crap MBA's these days and the decisions are fully reflected in their products and lack of optimizations.

Not much to brag as its expected

GarryB wrote:
The vast majority of the life of most combat jets will involved peace time and exercises rather than actual combat.

As I have mentioned.... the MiG-29 was expensive to operate because it was designed for war... between overhauls you just fuelled it and armed it and jumped in and flew it. Overhauls came around rather regularly and were extensive with parts being replaced based on hours of use rather than because of damage or wear or tear.

Reverting to an inspection method with diagnostic tools and systems dramatically reduced operational costs by an enormous margin, but it means in combat it will have to be inspected more often which will effect availability rates.

I would think a more affordable fighter is intended to allow useful numbers to be obtained without serious and unaffordable increases in the defence budget.

Russia doesn't lose anything with the MiG-35 not having the flight range of the Flanker or Su-57, but having a smaller lighter cheaper fighter means you can fill gaps that would otherwise be left empty.

Most new 5G fighters in development by "regional powers" are middle sized, twin engine with the "default" F-22 layout
That was largely because the F-22 was supposed to be an air to air fighter and was never expected to carry large payloads internally.

Engineers do the job you pay them to do. The managers were more interested in making sure the F-35 wouldn't be cancelled than they were in making it cheap.

But everything to brag about... a third world shithole gas station of a country that can't make anything made a 5th gen fighter that looks better than anything the Europeans have made... despite all their money and technology and sophistication...

GarryB wrote: I have said manouverability is not as valuable as very high speed and that future fighter drones will look like AAMs with smarter guidance systems (AI).

Why waste time manouvering with a manned fighter to try to get on his tail when you can just fly straight in to him and explode?

Once all his manned fighters are destroyed then unmanned fighters can take on their unmanned drones and victory...

who knows what smart wing designs they might have come up with.

You are the one not getting it.... if there was no lift the plane would be falling and not flying, so the plane obviously has lift...

presumably suggesting there is not enough bite or effect from taileron deflections to effect such a change in direction...

TVC engine nozzles generate turning forces that cannot stall and are not effected by the thin cold air at altitude.

A reinforced airplane is going to be heavier, so even though it can endure higher turn rates, it will be just as expensive to make as the manned version.

The cockpit and ejection seat and cockpit displays are not what make an F-35 a 120 million dollar aircraft.

The diagrams and things you are showing support your views that single engined fighters are lighter and cheaper and so much better,

So why do you think only being able to pull 8gs with folding wings is a problem and that being able to pull 11 gs is the solution?

Especially when at altitude you say you can only pull 5gs anyway...

How about take your super slow plane and fly it to high altitude where the high speed supersonic missile can only pull 5 g... which should mean it can only turn a tiny amount and just stall and it will miss...

The R-73 out accelerates either so the point is moot.

Because I don't agree with your solution of one engine in a fighter does not mean I am not open minded on the subject.

That was largely because the F-22 was supposed to be an air to air fighter and was never expected to carry large payloads internally.

Large internal weapon bays are a tricky problem for most supersonic platforms.

It is like a control surface ... not replacement for the main wing... the TVC just turns the aircraft in flight and the lifting surface... the wing and the body where relevant turn the aircraft and change the aircrafts flight direction... this change means inertia on the aircraft.... the tendency to continue going in the direction of travel is upset because the plane is now heading in a new direction... called a turn.

It would be the same if the Tailerons were turned differentially at first to effect a roll and then both angled together to pull up in a turn to change direction when a 90 degree roll had been achieved.

The tailerons don't need to support the plane and the plane will likely lose altitude when the 90 degree roll is achieved,  but when the pilot returns teh stick to centre and pulls back to perform a turn he will feel g forces from the side... ie natural gravity, but as he is pulling back on the stick g forces will push him down in his seat and the aircraft turns.

Engineers do the job you pay them to do. The managers were more interested in making sure the F-35 wouldn't be cancelled than they were in making it cheap.

GarryB wrote:The diagrams and things you are showing support your views that single engined fighters are lighter and cheaper and so much better, but if that were true why has the new 5th gen Fighter... the Tempest...  got two engines? Why has the Rafale got two engines... surely the ideal fighter would be a Rafale with the new engine for the Su-57... except it isn't.

Agreed, but that means single engine needs to gain more reliability. I did not see any corelation backed by data that single engines are involved in more accidents than twin engines in modern aircrafts in the last two decades. If an engine is reliable then it generally is....bird hits and maintenance lax could change the result between two but design and qc wise they are same.

RD-33 has fair amount of issues, plane is no doubt well designed. These engines are comparably inferior as they have not kept up the pace with western ones due to 90's and 1st decade of 2000.

At this point mig29 based platform has next to nothing chances in major Russian markets, execution of this project is piss poor and home country by all means is half assed in its purpose and adaptation and big one like India for migs has their own light fighter that serves their needs more or less going forward.

It is not that big of a deal to add external pylons, there is plenty for the airframe to support if you look at airframe for any special missions.

Nothing wrong in using F-22 layout and modify it to local needs like Korea or India.

Only hot zones in the world are on the borders of Russia, China, India that require any level of advanced aircrafts. Rest are either puppets under protection of major ally.....Turkey is tolerated but has no real chance to win war against major countries. Egypt and Algeria also about the same.....Israeli capabilities far exceed these countries.

Putting a non experienced engineer background MBA/Manager idiot over core engineers is at best frustrating and at worst dilute the practice eventually over time and get 3rd graded in output.

I am not sure whats with people on this forum getting uppity about some irrelevant nonsense that was said by some joker...

...I still like the F-35 in looks over su -57 but thats a personal preference.

Sexiest looking single engined plane of modern times for me.

Capacity to turn, accelerate and climb at all altitudes and flight regimes and during all phases of an engagement is crucial for a fighter.

If what you say is true, Russia would not have designed the PAK-FA almost obsessively reinforcing even further the lift generating features and turning characteristics from those of 4G fighters, but a MiG-31 type of plane.

Now you are describing a missile, not an UCAV. What is the difference between a rocket propelled, missile shaped "suicide drone" and a missile? The whole point here is the reusability / range / persistence of the UCAV, not to reinvent the wheel and give it a new name.

BTW see the new concept of operations of the Lantset vs Bayraktar type of drones, A2A battle of drones already getting interesting. Let's see how long it takes until the tactical drones start flying higher, getting a jet engine, AAM and so on.

If you don't know it, stop taking it for granted, it is absurd.

Lift to fly (1 g), not to turn with overloading... now think coming close to the service ceiling where simply staying in the air demands very fast speeds because of the lack of density of the air, how do you want to turn 2, 5 or 9 g?

No, I am not suggesting that, the problem is the lack of lift in the wings, not the "bite" of the control surfaces. That is the reason why planes bank before turning...

Technically they are affected, quite a bit, since engines only produce a low fraction of their sea level thrust at altitude. Coldness of the air increases its density BTW.

How do you expect any unmanned plane to withstand a higher g load without being reinforced and heavier?

Which is the same I am saying, those elements relative to the pilot are not what determines the price and size of a fighter, only a small factor.

You are disregarding the kinematic dimension of the air combat, which is the most important one, and the result is a lot of misconceptions.

And in any case a very slow plane cannot dodge a missile as said, unless the latter's guidance is crap.

The target will never move fast enough to get out of the interception window of the missile, which just needs minimal corrections in a lead pursuit.

Sorry that I don't have time to explain in how many levels this is wrong and shows poor comprehension of the issue.

You did it again, you claim an open mind and following you explain that single engine planes are cheap crap while the good ones are twin engine.

While in contrast I have never claimed that single engine fighters are superior,

Don't waste words, you still don't seem to understand how a plane turns.

Since both the UK and Italy have the F-35 and Sweden has the Grippen there is no point in making another platform in the same weight class.