MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

Is there any plans for additional MiG-29SMT orders? because MiG-35 isnt expected before 2015 i see and most old MiG-29s arent operational

George1 wrote:Is there any plans for additional MiG-29SMT orders? because MiG-35 isnt expected before 2015 i see and most old MiG-29s arent operational

There are still many legacy MiG-29s flying...they have not gone anywhere.

Regarding SMT:

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20130820/182860069/Russian-Military-to-Buy-16-MiG-29SMT-Fighter-Jets--Report.html

We are living the end of an era, the Su-35 somehow closing it.

There is no reason why the Mig-35 can't be everything the Su-35 will be but in a smaller slightly cheaper package... both will likely incorporate 5th gen avionics and have 5th gen weapons, which will likely make them useful numbers aircraft... the old theory is that the new 5th gen stealth aircraft will clear the skies of all other types using max stealth with internal weapons only. Once the skies are cleared they will start using external weapons to allow more ordinance to be carried.

There is no reason to think that 4+++ or whatever you want to call them could not be useful using 5th gen weapons that will likely be rather more effective against stealth aircraft than 4th gen weapons... with weapon capacity balancing their enormous RCS compared with aircraft with internal weapons.

Indeed the cost of 5th gen fighters could result in the effective use of 4+++ gen aircraft to outnumber the 5th gen fighters and overwhelm them using ground and space based sensors and IADS.

can someone inform us about the types of MiG's in numbers that are in service with russian airforce?? (MiG-29A, MiG-29S, MiG-29M)

GarryB wrote:

We are living the end of an era, the Su-35 somehow closing it.

There is no reason why the Mig-35 can't be everything the Su-35 will be but in a smaller slightly cheaper package...

The problem is that the philosophy that lead us to Mig-29 is much more outdated than the one that lead to the creation of the SU-27
which means that a new evolutionary and not revolutionary Mig-35 will be outdated as well.
If you add to this the usual deficiencies MiG is suffering in comparison to Sukhoi the last decades and I am not very optimistic about the whole program.

It is delayed and sub-founded for way too long and I don't expect it to be anything more that a major upgrade to bridge the gap until the forthcoming
second 5th generation program of the RuAF will be ready and even this if they manage to manufacture enough of them and get international orders as well.

In the meantime I think MiG spends much more resources in developing stealth high subsonic UAVs and probably working on a 5th gen project to replace MiG-29.

George1 wrote:can someone inform us about the types of MiG's in numbers that are in service with russian airforce?? (MiG-29A, MiG-29S, MiG-29M)

No MiG-29Ms.
A handful of MiG-29S at best.
Mostly 9-13s make up the fleet today.

The problem is that the philosophy that lead us to Mig-29 is much more outdated than the one that lead to the creation of the SU-27

I strongly disagree... the idea of the Mig-29 and Su-27 was that the Su-27 would perform longer range missions like escort for Su-24 and Tu-22M3 missions, and also air superiority roles over fairly wide areas.

The Mig-29 was a point defence fighter/interceptor that would basically replace the Mig-21, while the Su-27 would largely replace the Mig-23.

Compared with the base models the current aircraft are completely different.

Considering the aircraft actually in service the Mig-29s were rather more upgraded than their Su-27 equivalents with Su-27SM aircraft being about the best fighter Flankers in service, while the Mig-29S was pretty much the only Russian Air Force aircraft able to carry and use the R-77 for the 1990s.

Its performance has largely been compromised because the west had access to German Mig-29s and NATO pilots have extensively tested themselves and their equipment against them in a safe environment.

NATO has learned how to fight Mig-29s so NATO currently seriously underestimates the aircraft which has been considerably upgraded in pretty much all areas since 1990.

If Mig had the sales of Sukhoi then they could afford to sell them at reduced prices and undercut their competitor too, but times have been tough for Mig... partly because the Su-27 is only slightly more expensive but offers longer range etc etc, but in Russia this is not relevant and there are places where the extra range and performance of a Flanker is not needed, where a smaller lighter fighter using less fuel is a much better solution.

More importantly Mig will likely need to develop the light 5th gen fighter for Russia, so continuous work, and construction practise will keep them at the leading edge of technology, and retain a skilled workforce.

The equipment and tooling needed to produce the Mig-35 will be a useful base for producing newer aircraft... manned and unmanned.

It is also important to keep in mind that each former design bureau has subcontractors and relationships with different companies... Lyulka for Al-33s in the Flankers and Tumansky for the RD-33s of Mig... now Saturn and Klimov... and it is the same with radar companies etc etc.

A reason why Migs remains useful is I saw a comment that the Russian AF has bought Mig-29SMTs.... new builds.... for about 24 million each... these days that wont even buy you a state of the art attack helicopter...

The MiG-29 and Su-27 came out of the pretty much the same philosophy, schools of engineering, the whole shebang.

The USSR was not assuming it would collapse a few decades later, and the designs would have to compete for 3rd party orders, where the Su-27 had a standout feature (range and size) that the MiG-29 did not, which compensated for its relatively high operational costs.

GarryB wrote:

The problem is that the philosophy that lead us to Mig-29 is much more outdated than the one that lead to the creation of the SU-27

I strongly disagree... the idea of the Mig-29 and Su-27 was that the Su-27 would perform longer range missions like escort for Su-24 and Tu-22M3 missions, and also air superiority roles over fairly wide areas.

The Mig-29 was a point defence fighter/interceptor that would basically replace the Mig-21, while the Su-27 would largely replace the Mig-23.

Compared with the base models the current aircraft are completely different.

Considering the aircraft actually in service the Mig-29s were rather more upgraded than their Su-27 equivalents with Su-27SM aircraft being about the best fighter Flankers in service, while the Mig-29S was pretty much the only Russian Air Force aircraft able to carry and use the R-77 for the 1990s.

Its performance has largely been compromised because the west had access to German Mig-29s and NATO pilots have extensively tested themselves and their equipment against them in a safe environment.

NATO has learned how to fight Mig-29s so NATO currently seriously underestimates the aircraft which has been considerably upgraded in pretty much all areas since 1990.

If Mig had the sales of Sukhoi then they could afford to sell them at reduced prices and undercut their competitor too, but times have been tough for Mig... partly because the Su-27 is only slightly more expensive but offers longer range etc etc, but in Russia this is not relevant and there are places where the extra range and performance of a Flanker is not needed, where a smaller lighter fighter using less fuel is a much better solution.

More importantly Mig will likely need to develop the light 5th gen fighter for Russia, so continuous work, and construction practise will keep them at the leading edge of technology, and retain a skilled workforce.

The equipment and tooling needed to produce the Mig-35 will be a useful base for producing newer aircraft... manned and unmanned.

It is also important to keep in mind that each former design bureau has subcontractors and relationships with different companies... Lyulka for Al-33s in the Flankers and Tumansky for the RD-33s of Mig... now Saturn and Klimov... and it is the same with radar companies etc etc.

A reason why Migs remains useful is I saw a comment that the Russian AF has bought Mig-29SMTs.... new builds.... for about 24 million each... these days that wont even buy you a state of the art attack helicopter...

In different eras you address the same roles with different mechanical solutions aka with different performance characteristics.
Both MiG-29 and Su-27 families are now 3 decades old.

Su-27 family is still modern in anything but stealth capabilities. This is evident if you see that Su35 and PAK FA share the same philosophy in anything but PAK FA is compromised due to stealth needs. That's why Su35 can probably end up being the better plane.
You have to add to this a plane than can be derived for different platforms and usages from naval to light bomber versions and to multirole versions and you have a true legend.

On the other hand MiG-29 family's philosophy is greatly outdated for addressing the current needs from a light convenient  fighter/interceptor/naval multi-role platform.
If you add to this that the MiG-29's design is an one-off and you can't really derive any other planes from this and you have a bad project,
a company-killer project if you like. Not as terrible as F-35 but still quite dumb.

They just took MiG-25 and MiG-31 ingenious concepts and they created a more fighter prone, short oriented version of them.
It's a normal practice in industry for creating relatively risk free, something good, cheap and convenient without much development work.
They would not had failed if they had a completely new replacement ready in the mid-90s, but they took 20 more years and still counting...

The new replacement of the MiG-29 family will be a whole different concept with a whole different performance characteristics which really says it all.

The MiG-29 is basically a mini Su-27. They even look the same.

And the MiG-29 series is not at all outdated. With the hump-fuel tank it has nearly the same range as the base Su-27. It has less payload; but you can compensate for that too with larger formations and more specialised load-outs.

The new replacement for the MiG-29 will likely be to the PAK-FA what the MiG-29 was to the Su-27. A smaller, shorter range aircraft more suited to fill in gaps in airspace coverage than air superiority sorties over enemy territory.
So - not much different.

As as for the Su-35 vs. PAK-FA..
Dunno why you think the Su-35 is a better aircraft - everything the Su-35 does the PAK-FA does better; including maneuverability.

No reason to keep arguing with someone who thinks that MiG-29 is a mini Su27.
By the way, I would be astonished if PAK FA turned out to be more airworthy than Su35.
My understanding is that it will not be even close, although it is for the moment BY FAR the most air capable 5th gen plane.

Maybe not the MiG-29 and Su-27, as they were meant for different roles.

But certainly the MiG-35 multirole fighter and its bigger brother - the Su-35 multirole fighter.

The Su-35 offers increased range and payload capacity, but not everyone needs that.

If the High/Low paring of fighters is obsolete I guess the US must be going to scrap their F-16s and F-35s because unlike the Mig-29/Su-27 paring the F-16s and F-35s seem to be getting adaptations and upgrades to make them as capable as the F-15s and F-22s they are supposed to be operating with.   

The USSR was not assuming it would collapse a few decades later, and the designs would have to compete for 3rd party orders,

No... it was expecting to cover its own needs with two different aircraft with different features and capabilities tailored to the then Soviet Air Forces needs.

where the Su-27 had a standout feature (range and size) that the MiG-29 did not, which compensated for its relatively high operational costs.

But range also means time... as both aircraft have similar flight speeds the old chestnut of suggesting the Flankers extra range means the same area can be covered with fewer aircraft is bunk.

Two Fulcrums can cover more area than one Flanker much more effectively.

In different eras you address the same roles with different mechanical solutions aka with different performance characteristics.
Both MiG-29 and Su-27 families are now 3 decades old.

Su-27 family is still modern in anything but stealth capabilities.

Could say the same about the Mig-29 family... so why don't you?

This is evident if you see that Su35 and PAK FA share the same philosophy in anything but PAK FA is compromised due to stealth needs. That's why Su35 can probably end up being the better plane.

The Mig-35 will have a very impressive AESA radar and more weapon pylons than any Fulcrum before it, and its flight range will not be that much short of that of the Flanker and with inflight refuelling the difference will be eliminated.

On the other hand MiG-29 family's philosophy is greatly outdated for addressing the current needs from a light convenient fighter/interceptor/naval multi-role platform.

Why?

Why spend $60 million on an Su-35 to drop laser guided bombs or satellite guided bombs when a $24 million dollar new build Mig-29SMT could do the same job just as effectively... and meaning Su-35s are available for missions they would be better suited to like protecting Russian air space from F-35s and F-22s etc.

If you add to this that the MiG-29's design is an one-off and you can't really derive any other planes from this and you have a bad project,

What? Are Rafale and Typhoon bad aircraft because there are no dedicated strike models with two seats side by side?

The new replacement of the MiG-29 family will be a whole different concept with a whole different performance characteristics which really says it all.

Aerodynamically the Mig-29 is still a very efficient shape... it would not surprise me if the 5th gen light fighter they develop to replace it looks quite a bit like the Mig-29 the way most modern twin engined twin finned fighters look like the plane they are based on... ie the Mig-25.

And the MiG-29 series is not at all outdated. With the hump-fuel tank it has nearly the same range as the base Su-27. It has less payload; but you can compensate for that too with larger formations and more specialised load-outs.

This is the error many make and continue to make... the low in the highlow mix should not match the high aircraft in range and payload... that is just defeating the purpose of high/low design.

The Mig-29 should remain smaller and lighter and cheaper... it does not matter if it cannot carry the same payload... as you mention there will be more of them anyway, plus improvements in technology in sensors and weapons should mean that instead of sending 1,000 bombers to strike a factory as in WWII, a single aircraft with a single guided bomb should be able to do the job... accuracy over volume.

The new replacement for the MiG-29 will likely be to the PAK-FA what the MiG-29 was to the Su-27. A smaller, shorter range aircraft more suited to fill in gaps in airspace coverage than air superiority sorties over enemy territory.
So - not much different.

Agreed... PAK FA is a stealthy Su-35, while LMFS will be a stealthy Mig-35.

No reason to keep arguing with someone who thinks that MiG-29 is a mini Su27.

What else is it?

My understanding is that it will not be even close, although it is for the moment BY FAR the most air capable 5th gen plane.

More powerful engines, much less drag... it should have rather significant advantages in terms of acceleration and top speed over the Su-35.

Maybe not the MiG-29 and Su-27, as they were meant for different roles.

The difference in roles were not that great... frontal aviation used both aircraft while PVO tended to use the Sukhois more because of their range.

Both had rather more sophisticated onboard radar and IRST equipment that meant they were rather less dependent on ground controllers, but neither was multirole... both had very basic air to ground capability... unguided bombs and rockets.

The main models were the Su-27P interceptor, which had no ground attack capability worth talking about, and the Mig-29S which at least had the Gardenyia self defence suite and the capacity to use guided bombs and R-77 AAMs.

The Su-33 was not that much different from the Su-27P but with folding wings and a tailhook. The Mig-29K or Mig-33 had the ability to carry a variety of guided air to ground weapons.

The Mig-29SMT has finally added real ground attack multifunction capability so the aircraft can truly be seen as a replacement for the Mig-21, Mig-23, and Mig-27. The Su-27 has also grown up, and in its Su-27SM models could be seen as a replacement for Su-17 and Mig-21 light strike and fighter interceptor aircraft, but it also replaces the Fiddler Tu-128 and compliments the Mig-31.

The Su-35 offers increased range and payload capacity, but not everyone needs that.

They are different enough to compliment each other. Mig worked really hard on the SMT model to reduce operational costs and add fault finding and fault testing equipment to the aircraft... I would expect they carried that across to the Mig-35 and any future aircraft they will be involved with.

The key here is that these aircraft are weapons platforms... equip them with the same weapons and the performance will likely actually be very similar. The larger aircraft however has higher drag which means more fuel.

I don't think you make the effort to read what I say. You just isolate quotes and give correct but irrelevant data.

Anyway, again no point to turn this to a continuous debate, if LMFS turn out to be an engines based, rounded, sharp edged plane, with hastily manufactured rear end and basically separate wing and tail air flows and a very small almost non existent space for a frontal radar then you will be triumphant in your arguments, else...

Russian Air Force has any program to upgrade some of its MiG-29 fighters to SMT standard??

I don't think you make the effort to read what I say. You just isolate quotes and give correct but irrelevant data.

I am sorry, but your comments come across as replies so they are hard to follow.

You said to FP that he was wrong about the Mig-29 being a mini Su-27 but you didn't say why. Perhaps if you tell us more about what you think are the differences between the two aircraft are then we can talk about it a bit more.

Anyway, again no point to turn this to a continuous debate, if LMFS turn out to be an engines based, rounded, sharp edged plane, with hastily manufactured rear end and basically separate wing and tail air flows and a very small almost non existent space for a frontal radar then you will be triumphant in your arguments, else...

Rounded sharp edged...?

Hastily manufactured?

The Mig-15 suffered from vibrations at very high speeds and the problem was traced to variations in manufacture of the wings of about 5mm that resulted in vibration. The Mig-17 corrected that with some design changes, but also better manufacturing standards to improve the accuracy of manufacture.

A stealth aircraft needs to be precisely made within fractions of a mm, otherwise it will all be for nothing.

The Russians have already developed radar antenna that can be mounted in the wing leading edge... in the future there is no reason why they could not fit AESA radar modules on any surface area of the external skin of the aircraft pointing in all directions at once... remember future AESA array radars will also be jammers and recon sensors as well as active detection devices.

With thrust vectoring engines they might just go with a delta wing form with two engines offering yaw and pitch control with differential nozzle control offering roll control... not having vertical or horizontal tails should make the plane simpler and cheaper and stealthier too.

With high manouvering missiles like Morfei and R-77 etc the requirement for dogfighting capability is reduced, though a thrust vector control flying wing should be able to turn with the best of them...

Russian Air Force has any program to upgrade some of its MiG-29 fighters to SMT standard??

AFAIK they have decided that the Mig-29SMTs they will buy will be new builds as their existing airframes are a little worn out.

It is possible therefore that the new Mig-29SMTs might look a lot like Mig-29M2s...

GarryB wrote:

I am sorry, but your comments come across as replies so they are hard to follow.

You said to FP that he was wrong about the Mig-29 being a mini Su-27 but you didn't say why. Perhaps if you tell us more about what you think are the differences between the two aircraft are then we can talk about it a bit more.

Mig-29 is indeed a mini Su-27, because they were part of the same competion, which Su won. Only later, sov leadership learned about f-16, f-18 programs, and opted for both programs to continue.

The story I remember reading was that a promising engineer working for either Mig or Sukhoi developed the basic shape and proved in the wind tunnel at the TsAGI that it was a very efficient shape and a good design for a supersonic f from a conventional and also slow and take off from a conventional air strip... keep in mind that the Mig-23 was in service and its solution was a complicated and heavy swing wing.

The design was rejected because the design bureau he was working for was not wanting to design a fighter at that time, so the designer left and took his design to the other design bureau. I believe he worked for Mig and went to Sukhoi who was working on a heavy long range fighter for the PVO that eventually turned into the Su-27... it is fairly public knowledge that the first Su-27 prototype was quite different and the aircraft we see today looks rather more like the Mig-29 than the original prototype did.

Once the generals saw the Su-27 they decided they wanted a new smaller fighter for the Frontal Aviation units to replace the Mig-23 and Mig-21 and the result was the adoption of the Mig-29.

The Mig was designed as a short range high speed point defence interceptor fighter so 6 weapon pylons was considered adequate... two BVR R-27 missiles and four dogfight R-73 missiles with a centreline tank used only for ferrying missions to move the aircraft from airfield to airfield.

The Su-27 on the other hand had a more refined and aerodynamic shape with the long tail stinger to reduce drag for long flights and the 10 weapons pylons for combat persistence.

Both aircraft got expensive modern radar sets and IRST systems... money wasn't an issue, so it was more a case of custom designed aircraft for specific roles rather than an expensive capable heavy fighter and a cheap light fighter.

Work by Mig to reduce operational costs however have been effective and the Mig-29SMT is rather cheaper to operate than the Flanker series.

I am sorry, but your comments come across as replies so they are hard to follow.

Understandable, but this doesn't prevent you from dismissing what I say, without even knowing what I try to say.

You said to FP that he was wrong about the Mig-29 being a mini Su-27 but you didn't say why. Perhaps if you tell us more about what you think are the differences between the two aircraft are then we can talk about it a bit more.

And I still don't know what to say. I mean what would you say if I was saying that fiat 500 is basically a small vw scirocco?
For starters they don't even have the same role and there is also huge size difference. I mean the question is so basic that I am hesitant to talk about aerodynamic aspects.
Anyway, MiG-29 is old school aerodynamically wise. Big flat surfaces, squared angles, low cooperation between the wind and the tail, vertical fins to drive the air in high speeds, little attention to rear end details because back then aerodynamic focused on front end behavior.

Additional, a plane designed not to be very agile and unstable because when designed computers weren't yet adequate to make real time corrections, incorporated leading edge extensions and swept wings all of them because the main purpose of the plane was to have superior ceiling, rate of climb and be strong in high supersonic speeds.
This specialization included adequate engines and a higher front end when stationed.

All this is old school. This is not how modern aerodynamics work. Additionally planes now focus more in slower speeds cuz high supersonic dogfight is not what designers we dream anymore.
In case you wonder, is not that we don't want more of top ceiling or roc or longitudinal G, is that WE SACRIFICE this for other characteristics.
Additional the plane as it is can't incorporate so much modern developments. Like I said, the frontal area is small enough to fit a top AESA radar. Because size and weight is what it takes to have a strong transmitter. And a strong transmitter is what you need to detect LRS objects.

Also you can't really make aerodynamic changes in this craft because engines have such a central role in the designing and there is no way to change things, this also explains why not many derivatives came from MiG29 as opposed to SU-27. By the way, although it seems that your knowledge of fluid dynamics is quite limited, else you wouldn't compare this two planes, you should be able to realize how mig29 almost derived from mig31 just by observing the two planes and their flight characteristics.

Rounded sharp edged...?

Hastily manufactured?

It is as it is and it is well known. Engines, bottom surfaces and rear surfaces has huge knobs. At least in the early days. It is well documented. Common practice to reduce costs where it doesn't matter performance wise to reduce industrial standards. Russian military industry triumphs this logic for decades eg T34. You didn't know this either.

The Mig-15 suffered from vibrations at very high speeds and the problem was traced to variations in manufacture of the wings of about 5mm that resulted in vibration. The Mig-17 corrected that with some design changes, but also better manufacturing standards to improve the accuracy of manufacture.

A stealth aircraft needs to be precisely made within fractions of a mm, otherwise it will all be for nothing.

Correct but irrelevant. BTW one more reason why you can't incorporate LRS characteristics to MiG29 family.

The Russians have already developed radar antenna that can be mounted in the wing leading edge... in the future there is no reason why they could not fit AESA radar modules on any surface area of the external skin of the aircraft pointing in all directions at once... remember future AESA array radars will also be jammers and recon sensors as well as active detection devices.

Size and weight will always negate radar performance. Ever thought why AWACS are big planes? You now got your answer.

With thrust vectoring engines they might just go with a delta wing form with two engines offering yaw and pitch control with differential nozzle control offering roll control... not having vertical or horizontal tails should make the plane simpler and cheaper and stealthier too.

Almost forgot to mention than since in MiG29 family the center of mass is so close to the center of aerodynamic pressures thrust vectoring will not offer nearly as much as to SU-27 family. Is just not designed for thrust vectoring. Ever thought why they hesitate to add thrust vectoring? Now got your answer. Is just that it doesn't pay that much and is hard to implement with the nozzles so much behind a delta-design tail. MiG designed to use engines as drag, not to cooperate with the wings.

Understandable, but this doesn't prevent you from dismissing what I say, without even knowing what I try to say.

If you give reasoning behind your assertions perhaps it would be easier to discuss...

For starters they don't even have the same role and there is also huge size difference.

Both are fighter/interceptor aircraft primarily for air to air combat but with very secondary air to ground capability in their early models.

Later models of both aircraft significantly improve in both air to ground and in air to air performance.

Anyway, MiG-29 is old school aerodynamically wise. Big flat surfaces, squared angles, low cooperation between the wind and the tail, vertical fins to drive the air in high speeds, little attention to rear end details because back then aerodynamic focused on front end behavior.

Both aircraft have sophisticated modern wings that allowed efficient subsonic and supersonic flight from a wing that is not so swept back that it needs a 3km runway to operate from.

Both aircraft have lifting bodies that generate a significant amount of lift in flight.

Additional, a plane designed not to be very agile and unstable because when designed computers weren't yet adequate to make real time corrections, incorporated leading edge extensions and swept wings all of them because the main purpose of the plane was to have superior ceiling, rate of climb and be strong in high supersonic speeds.
This specialization included adequate engines and a higher front end when stationed.

Right now instant turn rates and unstable flight models are not that important really... the Typhoon is a very agile aircraft but would not be able to dodge a modern guided air to air missile with thrust vectoring... the best features of the Typhoon is thrust to weight ratio and climb rate to allow a missile shot to get extra reach with rapid acceleration and climb before launch to give your missile maximum energy. The Mig-29 and Su-27 can do the same.

Additionally planes now focus more in slower speeds cuz high supersonic dogfight is not what designers we dream anymore.

In the 1980s the west dreamed of close combat because it was sure it could win... its planes were more manouverable and its pilots far better trained... then they got to test a Mig-29 with high offboresight missiles and a helmet mounted sight and all of a sudden... panic... AMRAAM was fast tracked and long range engagements were seen as the solution even though BVR means more friend on friend kills and a much lower probability of a kill (PK).

With modern planes supercruising all over the place the priority will be BVR combat rather than dogfighting and when it comes to BVR the Mig-29 is faster than most western fighters at mach 2.3 so it should be able to give its missiles more speed at launch which is a huge advantage as your missiles arrive first...

Also you can't really make aerodynamic changes in this craft because engines have such a central role in the designing and there is no way to change things, this also explains why not many derivatives came from MiG29 as opposed to SU-27.

Both aircraft don't need major aerodynamic changes...

how mig29 almost derived from mig31 just by observing the two planes

All twin engined twin tail finned aircraft could be said to have been derived from the Mig-25... from which the Mig-31 was developed.

It is as it is and it is well known. Engines, bottom surfaces and rear surfaces has huge knobs. At least in the early days. It is well documented.

Ahhh, you are talking about the old rivets sticking out etc... which had no effect on performance as the airflow over the surface was not affected by such things... in fact I have read that minor bumps on a surface improves airflow like dimples on a golf ball and actually reduces drag in flight.

Russian military industry triumphs this logic for decades eg T34. You didn't know this either.

Of course I knew that, but the production standard when RCS was not important and the effect on aerodynamics was nil meant it was not actually a problem except for armchair generals in the west who used to claim it was because the Soviets didn't have good enough manufacturing technology to do a better job.

Now that RCS is a consideration you wont see bumps on new build Mig-29s any more than you will on new Flankers so it really is not an important factor when trying to claim the Flanker is ok but the Fulcrum is not.

Correct but irrelevant. BTW one more reason why you can't incorporate LRS characteristics to MiG29 family.

Very relevant... the Russians/Soviets don't make planes to look pretty and smooth, they make them practical and functional. As requirements change they can adapt the design to suit... increasing stealth and composites in the design. Obviously they can't make it stealthy but then if they could no one would buy F-35s or PAK FAs.

Size and weight will always negate radar performance. Ever thought why AWACS are big planes? You now got your answer.

And when your Su-27s and Mig-29s are operating with AWACS and ground based radar stations and they have their own radar sets turned off so as not to give away their position... which do you think offers better value for money?

The Flanker is a great plane, but the Fulcrum is too.

Almost forgot to mention than since in MiG29 family the center of mass is so close to the center of aerodynamic pressures thrust vectoring will not offer nearly as much as to SU-27 family. Is just not designed for thrust vectoring.

Are you serious?

Look up Youtube for Mig-29OVT flight displays and tell me it is no good for thrust vector capabilities...

Ever thought why they hesitate to add thrust vectoring?

The Russians? Because it is mostly useful for dogfighting and with AIM-9X and ASRAAM and various other potent WVR guided missiles BVR is much safer, but the Su-35, Mig-35 and PAK FA will all have thrust vector flight controls anyway.

The West? because they haven't perfected the technology yet plus the Euro canards have engines mounted together which reduces the effect of differential thrust control meaning roll rate is not great using TVC only.

MiG designed to use engines as drag, not to cooperate with the wings.

The engine positions do increase frontal drag, but not to the extent that it impacts on performance... the F-16 has much less frontal drag yet is slower in terms of top speed and acceleration.

If you keep posting such big posts tell me to admit defeat   
I still have a job as well   

Both are fighter/interceptor aircraft primarily for air to air combat but with very secondary air to ground capability in their early models.

Later models of both aircraft significantly improve in both air to ground and in air to air performance.

Unlike MiG29, SU27 is air superiority plane. A whole different philosophy. If you want to erase anything then you can say that T-95 and Mi-28 they both fly so they are both the same. Please don't extend this to infinite.

Both aircraft have sophisticated modern wings that allowed efficient subsonic and supersonic flight from a wing that is not so swept back that it needs a 3km runway to operate from.

Both aircraft have lifting bodies that generate a significant amount of lift in flight.

Again the previous answer my friend.
Listen: Reading your posts I hypothesized that you come from an engineering background like me. Don't want to be a crook. I did start with a bachelor in Mech engineering but I never worked in anything related and my graduate studies had to do with pure sciences. So, I am not an expert but I do know the basic principles. If you lack this knowledge there is no point discussing design characteristics even in my -amateur- level.

Right now instant turn rates and unstable flight models are not that important really... the Typhoon is a very agile aircraft but would not be able to dodge a modern guided air to air missile with thrust vectoring... the best features of the Typhoon is thrust to weight ratio and climb rate to allow a missile shot to get extra reach with rapid acceleration and climb before launch to give your missile maximum energy. The Mig-29 and Su-27 can do the same.

Don't confuse design philosophy with performance. MiG-29 had and still has quite good angular velocities helped by it's strong engines and good lift.
Take also great g loads. More than what Typhoon can sustain. This doesn't mean that is a modern design.

With modern planes supercruising all over the place the priority will be BVR combat rather than dogfighting and when it comes to BVR the Mig-29 is faster than most western fighters at mach 2.3 so it should be able to give its missiles more speed at launch which is a huge advantage as your missiles arrive first...

You basically take this into account in the designing phase by running computer simulations.
I don't think that this trick play a role in so many encounters.
Speed is important to:

-go first in the battle zone
-follow your opponent when you dogfighting
-escape from your opponent when dogfighting
-pass through enemy areas quickly
-avoid SAM's and ground defense in general
-out-drag air to air missiles
-climb fast to escape from lock
-climb and start an attack from favorable angle and altitude
-maintain high energy when fighting and be a difficult target
-keeping your ability to maneuver by using high kinetic energy
-keep a higher speed when diving without losing control
...
...
...
-adding your speed to your missile speed should be of quite minor significance. your missile gonna slow down to it's own ceiling speed pretty quickly anyway, before start cruising with it's own propulsion. Missiles who are designed to cruise with mach 3 can't function at mach 5 forget it. Material wise and design wise if not for anything else.

Ahhh, you are talking about the old rivets sticking out etc... which had no effect on performance as the airflow over the surface was not affected by such things... in fact I have read that minor bumps on a surface improves airflow like dimples on a golf ball and actually reduces drag in flight.

Yeah. This is what I was talking about. Back then they was thinking that it doesn't matter. IT DOES matter a lot IF your CFD model is complicate enough to compute the airflow from nose to tail and not part by part like it was only possible back then.

Of course I knew that, but the production standard when RCS was not important and the effect on aerodynamics was nil meant it was not actually a problem except for armchair generals in the west who used to claim it was because the Soviets didn't have good enough manufacturing technology to do a better job.

Now that RCS is a consideration you wont see bumps on new build Mig-29s any more than you will on new Flankers so it really is not an important factor when trying to claim the Flanker is ok but the Fulcrum is not.

You have to realize my friend. They DESIGNED the plane so that can have bumps WITHOUT punishing performance because they were PLANNING to accept bumps in order to decrease costs.
So bumps were INHERITED to the design of the plane and played their role IN COMPROMISING the design. This is how designing works.

And when your Su-27s and Mig-29s are operating with AWACS and ground based radar stations and they have their own radar sets turned off so as not to give away their position... which do you think offers better value for money?

VFM is a bitch. Hard to know before hand. This is again irrelevant with my very first post which was saying:
-MiG-29 is old school in terms of design. NOT NECESSARILY BAD merely old school
-MiG-29 is an one off design. Can't derive a whole family of planes from this as oppose to SU-27

Look up Youtube for Mig-29OVT flight displays and tell me it is no good for thrust vector capabilities...

The most efficient way to program the computers which take care of thrust vectoring is to put them establish the balance of the plane in the same way that you use ABS system to unlock the wheels which would have been block with conventional brakes.
So when you have the best from ABS? When you have a car which blocks wheels a lot. Big heavy vehicles with strong brakes eg super-tourers and limousines not lotuses or caterhams or bikes.
When you maximise TV? When you have an agile plane with designed instability eg SU-27 eg F15 eg F16 to a lesser extend.

If you keep posting such big posts tell me to admit defeat Laughing

I am glad you put a smilie there because this really isn't about winning and losing... this is just a chat about something we are both interested in... if we can keep it sensible and civil then it is likely be will both learn something... even if it is that not everyone thinks what we think... (which more people need to learn and accept).

Unlike MiG29, SU27 is air superiority plane. A whole different philosophy.

Not at all. Both aircraft would have very specific missions, like keep this area free of enemy aircraft for x amount of time, or to escort these aircraft while they attack ground targets, or these aircraft are attacking our ground forces... intercept and destroy them.

Air superiority or CAP (Combat air patrol) where the job is to control airspace in a given area can be given to any fighter aircraft.

A Mig-35 with a centreline fuel tank and 10 R-77s would be rather better at controlling a particular piece of air space than an Su-27, and in many ways would be as good as an Su-35 as long as the area is not too big.

If you want to erase anything then you can say that T-95 and Mi-28 they both fly so they are both the same. Please don't extend this to infinite.

Except that the operational units that use Mig-29s perform the same missions and duties as the units that operate Flankers... the main difference is that with a limited supply of inflight refuelling tanker aircraft the Fulcrum units operate over a smaller area... which is fine as both aircraft types have similar speed which means the Fulcrum offers better coverage of the area it operates in.

Think of it in terms of the engagement circle of a surface to air missile... different speeds of target change the effective engagement range of the SAM, so a very high speed target might not be within range of a long range SAM if it is crossing the edge of its engagement circle long enough for the SAM to reach out and touch so to speak. But with a smaller shorter range SAM the SAM takes less time to get to its max range so there is less time for the target to leave the engagement area...

If you lack this knowledge there is no point discussing design characteristics even in my -amateur- level.

Look at a Mig-15 wing... it is basically a straight wing swept back to allow high subsonic speed flight. To reliably get supersonic it needed even more sweep as shown by the wing of the Mig-17. The trade off is that the more wing sweep the less lift at low speeds so the more runway you need to get airborne.
In the next gen... the Mig-21, they went for a delta wing design, which allowed supersonic flight but led to speed losses in turns and other limitations.

The next solution was a mechanical system to change the wing sweep, so with a nearly straight wing the aircraft can take off and land at low speed, while in combat a mid angle allows the best compromise of lift and drag while fully swept back wings allow very low drag for high speed flight... a supersonic mach 2 fighter that can operate from short strips.

The problem is weight and complication.

The Mig-25 was optimised for very high speed flight and was never intended to operate from short runways so it has a thin high speed wing.

The Mig-29 and Su-27 have a wing that allows short takeoff AND high supersonic speed without a swing wing mechanism and was a serious step forward in wing design.

But if you don't think I am worthy of even talking about it that is fine too.

This doesn't mean that is a modern design.

Actually it does mean it is a modern design... what it means is that it is not a recent design.

As mentioned before modern dogfight missiles are very potent and with the approach of Morfei, which has a fully vectored thrust rocket motor and lock on after launch guidance system with an imaging IR seeker dogfighting will become too dangerous because to survive you will need to kill your enemy before you enemy even sees you otherwise he could look and fire before your missile hits and even if your missile kills him there is a good chance he could kill you too... not very desirable at all.

-adding your speed to your missile speed should be of quite minor significance. your missile gonna slow down to it's own ceiling speed pretty quickly anyway, before start cruising with it's own propulsion. Missiles who are designed to cruise with mach 3 can't function at mach 5 forget it. Material wise and design wise if not for anything else.

A Mig-29 armed with an R-27ET and R-27ER and four R-73 missiles flying at 600km/h at 1,500m detects an enemy F-16 at 50km range (in 1987). At that speed and height there is nothing either aircraft can do to the other because the F-16 can't carry Sparrows and AMRAAM isn't operational yet, so all it has is 20km range Sidewinders.
The Mig-29 pilot on the other hand can accelerate and climb to 1,800km/h and 12,000m and then take a shot with his R-27ER missile, the F-16 can either turn towards the Mig and try to get close enough for a Sidewinder shot which means having to evade 6 missiles because all 6 missiles the Mig carries now outrange any sidewinder the F-16 might be carrying.

Speed and altitude radically effect missile speed and range... range given for most AAMs is head on from a high altitude high speed launch and at low speed and low altitude are generally about 20-30% of that value.

...so yes, I think it is a valuable thing.

Operationally it is likely the Mig-29 would have had its radar not emitting and getting target information and flight directions from a ground station or AWACS which would put the Mig high and fast and in an ideal position for a missile shot.

Back then they was thinking that it doesn't matter.

Aerodynamically it still doesn't matter because airflow a few mms from the surface of the plane is turbulent anyway... random bumps and dimples actually improve airflow and reduce drag... like the dimples on a golf ball make the flow of air over the surface of the ball hug the shape of the ball so that the air is pulled to flow around the ball... look it up... a smooth ball has the airflow separating at the top and bottom and sides so the drag causing turbulent shadow is the width of the ball. With dimples the air sticks to the surface of the ball so it flows around the ball a bit and only separates after it has moved around a bit so the turbulent area is smaller which equals less drag and less drag means the ball goes further because it slows down less.

Bumps and dimples are not applied to aircraft these days because of the enormous increase in radar cross section it creates.

I would suggest the improvement in production techniques that created modern smooth surfaces for Mig-29s probably alone had a dramatic effect on RCS.

..it is no longer an issue... look at close up shots of Mig-29K2s.

So bumps were INHERITED to the design of the plane and played their role IN COMPROMISING the design. This is how designing works.

The bumps were part of the manufacturing process to make the early Mig-29s. The manufacturing processes have changed... look at a new build Mig-29K2 and you will not see bumps. It was done before because RCS was not relevant to the performance of the aircraft. It is done now because now it is relevant to the RCS of the aircraft. The manufacturing methods are not an inherent part of the design... they could make it out of wood if they wanted to.

Equally designs are not set in stone they have changed the design several times including adding a hump back and adding composite components and increasing the fuel fraction and of course changing the electronics several times.

A real obsolete design is one that has not changed and would be a very rare and unusual thing.

-MiG-29 is old school in terms of design. NOT NECESSARILY BAD merely old school

-MiG-29 is an one off design. Can't derive a whole family of planes from this as oppose to SU-27

The Mig-29 and Su-27 came from the same place and of the same generation. Any upgrade you can apply to the Su-27, you can apply to the Mig-29.

In fact you could argue the Mig-29 is actually better than the Su-27, because the Su-27 is split into three families for three different jobs... Su-33 for carrier use, Su-35 for fighter interceptor use, and Su-34 for long range strike and possibly jamming and recon use, while the Mig-29 in the form of the Mig-29K2 is a carrier capable aircraft and the Mig-29M2/35 which will be both short range strike and short to medium range fighter interceptor.

The Flanker is replacing itself and the Su-24 with two versions with significant differences.

The Mig is replacing the Mig-23 and Mig-21 as a fighter interceptor and the Mig-27 as light short range strike missions with one aircraft.

I would say that the latter is the better deal despite the Su-34 being a very capable aircraft.

You can't say that makes the Flanker more versatile because you are making it less versatile by creating dedicated custom versions for more specific uses... for which they are very good.

You are ignoring the fact that the Mig-35 is also very good and is multirole too.

When you maximise TV? When you have an agile plane with designed instability eg SU-27 eg F15 eg F16 to a lesser extend.

AFAIK the early model Flankers are not unstable.

the F-16 is a single engined aircraft so TVC would be fairly limited.

When you start using TVC you stop using your wings to control the aircraft and you go into a stall. What keeps you from losing control is the fact that you can use vectored thrust to direct your nose up and down, left and right and both yaw and roll control. With a single engine you lose yaw and roll control... and aircraft with two engines close together would have serious problems with roll control too.

F-22, F-18, F-15, Typhoon, Rafale... they all have their engines close together so Roll control would be a problem. F-14, Su-27, Mig-29, PAK FA all have separated engines that allow TVC engines to work differentially to allow full roll control.

As I said above however dogfights are too dangerous... the F-22 would be in trouble in a dogfight.

TVC means being able to line your gun on your opponent and not having to worry about keeping your speed up so you don't stall and lose control...

Contract for 16 MiG-29SMT to be signed in first quarter of this year:
http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20140116/989583967.html

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/716653.html

Hmm here it says the contract will be for 18 birds.

Yeah i saw that, not sure if bmpd put the wrong number or it will be 18, we'll see i guess.
On a related note, MiG-29K/KUB avionics presentation from RPKB:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89T48xGUiVQ