Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
GarryB wrote:There were no practical reasons for this... A MiG-29 is as good a plane as the Flanker was and for the vast majority of missions the MiG was more than enough.... and cheaper, but for political reasons they went for Flankers in a big way... helped obviously by their export success.
Hahaha, they went for the Flanker because it was not Communist you say... good one
They are replacing old obsolete equipment and systems and replacing them with new to make them cheaper to operate and support. A dumb bomb aiming system is great for third world COIN ops, but can you honestly say Su-33s will be the first choice with two iron 500kg bombs to take out US carriers?
SVP-24 is not replacing equipment, is added one to make a good bomber out of the Su-33. A good start, we will see whether they keep on developing it into a weapon for naval strike with high end AShM like they have shown many times at airshows.
The bullshit they have been spouting about the MiG, it is probably not worth it... the MiG-35 is a new plane with new technology that wont be cheap.
Oh yes, if they buy 110 MiGs it will be worth it...
Indias plans are domestic production of their own planes of their own design, in the long term MiG can't rely on them for their market going forward.
They had many plans before, but they are still buying 21 MiG-29 out of pure need. Offering a good product at a good price will always work, and if not, using a big contract to modernize the company is more than enough.
You are putting too much emphasis on size... the MiG-35 is vastly cheaper to operate than the Su-35, which is the aircraft it will be paired with (Su-30 actually).
Sure... meanwhile you:
> Don't have a clue how much cheaper MiG-35 is compared to Su-35
> Say it is cheaper because it is smaller.
What are the other arguments for it being cheaper to operate than the Su-35?
When using Su-57s then MiGs would give away their presence...
MiGs cannot keep up with the Su-57 in range or speed, and of course they would not give away the Sukhois. Your excuses are specially weak today...
In that case there is no need to have both MiG and Sukhoi if their suppliers provide the same engines and the same radars and same components...
You are making me laugh today. There are tons of degrees of freedom for every bureau, Sukhoi is not guilty that as of late MiG tends to choose the wrong ones.
you lose all competition and diversity and choice... UAC can then dictate to the Russian military what they can have instead of the other way around.
Drama queen. They don't need thousands of suppliers of tires, landing gear or screws. They need a consolidated, efficient industry where basic products have few degrees of freedom (because it brings nothing to do otherwise) yet complex systems where design philosophy plays a role have a few design schools competing for the best idea to win.
Plus half your contractors will go bust and stop developing and innovating.
No, they will dedicate themselves to something useful hey are good at, instead of duplicating efforts.
Yeah, you are not paying attention... the MiG-35 is not their LMFS entry... it is their Su-35 equivalent.
If you were paying attention you would remember I said that already weeks ago, apart from the post above, too. Su-35 had a time in early 2000, twenty years later is simply terribly late compared to the status that Sukhoi has reached.
The Su-57 basically looks like a Su-35 with stealthy reshaping on a fundamental level, but there is no guarantee the MiG LMFS entry will have the same layout as the MiG-35.
Among the very few concrete evidence about it there is the LOI with UAE for developing a 5G light fighter based on the MiG-29, in case you don't remember it.
The MiG-35 and Su-35 have excellent efficient and capable shapes in terms of aerodynamics, but they have had access to super computers and plenty of time to test all sorts of shapes and layouts and structures and materials... they might end up with an F-22 or a YF-23 or it might be something radical...
This is wishful thinking...
The MiG-35 and Su-35 and F-22 are all basically the same layout and planform of the MiG-25...
... and this is BS
Many of the issues with the MiG-35 probably revolve around the AESA radar and other issues that really do not relate to MiG... the sub contractors that work for MiG work for other companies too but the integration of a fighter AESA radar with fighter engines and fighter sized IRST etc etc is not going to happen on any platform other than a light fighter and for the moment what other platform will they have experience of doing that with?
You don't know who is to blame, but MiG as program head needs to be in charge and not allow i.e Phazotron, if it was their fault, to ruin their plans, they can go to Tikhomirov. It is ok they develop it and make experience, but when they are too late they are coming increasingly close to defeating the whole purpose.
The MiG-35 MiG was developing for India is not the same design they are making for the Russian AF... for a start it contains all Russian components... something that was changed in about 2014 for most Russian weapon makers.
They put essentially anything behind the name "MiG-35" depending on the venue.
How about we wait to see what the MiG-35 can do before we declare Sukhoi as being the best at everything.
I am just saying that Sukhoi has come much further into 5G and beyond that MiG, that is a no brainer.
Remember Klimov 3D thrust vectoring nozzles are genuine 3D nozzles... not 2D nozzles installed on an angle to simulate 2.5D thrust vectoring.
That nobody uses, yes.
In both cases they took the original design and massively upgraded every aspect as far as their technology allowed, but it is bad when MiG does it according to you.
It is bad when MiG follows the principle "and me too" for anything Sukhoi does, only they do it later and worse.
I see it as following the plan.
Me too, but I don't like the plan
You want to see the from scratch new design.... WTF do you think the LMFS is going to be?
Hey there quite few people in this world with a clearer idea what they think LMFS will be, to the point of having modelled it including internals etc
As well as operational costs and purchase price... which is sort of what you want in a lighter fighter design.
You have no freakin numbers
Now tell me one thing the Su-35 is ahead of MiGs LMFS design... what do you mean that is not fair comparing a design we don't know everything about with a design we know nothing about... isn't that just as fair as comparing a 4th gen light fighter with a 5th gen medium fighter and demanding the light fighter to be better?
No clue what you are talking about. Who has said anything about LMFS, I don't even know for sure it will be done...
Which suggests sharing information and technology across the companies would avoid such waste and lead to several new engines with much better capabilities.
It is amusing to think you believe that Saturn is the centre of the Russian engine universe, Klimov can make pretty good engines too and might already be working on new technology that Saturn never considered.
The fact that MiG are talking about a Mach 4.2 new MiG-41 suggests Klimov might have a product that can operate as a ramjet at the very least...
Yak proposed some designs with lift fans but never actually built any for production... perhaps that is for a reason?
No idea.
The Yak-38 and Yak 141 used fixed twin lift jets that were dead weight in normal cruise flight, but that does not mean they could not have redesigned them to allow their use in normal cruise flight reducing thrust performance requirements for the rear engine in normal operation.
The monopoly domination in fighter aircraft by one design bureau and one jet engine maker would damage future development and procurement prospects.
They need to take care of that for sure
Engine diversity is a good thing and smaller lighter engines are cheaper to design and make.
No and no. First expensive, second is just another engine and therefore expensive. Scaling one core is way cheaper than designing different engines in different sizes from scratch.
Having two 5th gen engines is better than having one.
GarryB pays
The difference between a 4th gen fighters engine and a 5th gen fighters engine are no magic... once you work out what design you can use to turn an Al-31 into an Al-41, and then Al-51 or whatever this new engine will be called... the same changes and upgrades and materials can be used to change RD-33s too.
See above. It would be a scaled Lyulka/Saturn engine.
It means serious changes in the fundamental design of the engine so that the engine can generate the required thrust at the necessary altitude and flight speed... so using one engine for light and medium fighter aircraft that might have flight speed limits of mach 2 and mach 2.5, and the same engine for a heavy interceptor that operates at mach 4.2 is obviously going to be a problem.
It is clear that writing my tirades about ABVCE, RTA and so on has not served any purpose with you, you understood zero from all that.
Medium fighters (Su-27)
I left it there
Having a specialist plane with a specialist role use a standard engine is a waste of time and energy and money unless the ultimate plan is for all the planes that use it also fly that fast... which is unlikely.
You still don't get it...
But this is different... the light fighter will be more of a swing fighter supporting ground forces or local forces rather than flying high and fast dominating the air space like the medium fighter would.
VCE... and BTW Su-57 and the like are heavy fighters. MiG-29, Rafale etc are medium.
Plans are good, but all plans need to be flexible and change is a normal part of management.
You don't understand those plans, so UEC will change them to suit your mood.
Personally I think the solution is to use two of the smaller lighter cheaper engines and get the best of both worlds...
I give up
So you admit there is a danger in being too light, that is good...
Sure there is, I told you 100 times a plane with less than 10 t empty will probably not have a substantial internal weapon carriage capability.
but this is not for Russia... this is for cheap light fighters for poor countries so actually the RD-33 is actually ideal...
LMFS not for Russia? One more bet admitted
if you didn't have a bug up your arse about Klimov and MiG.
If you had not noticed it, my user name is a MiG project. But I still have some objectivity and they are simply not in their best moment. If Sukhoi comes up with better ideas, then they should develop the light fighter.
plane... I don't need the 
