MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

GarryB wrote:



Note the last one is a Mig-29M2 because it doesn't have enough wing pylons...

If you look carefully, on this photo Mig just doesn't have outside pylon mounted on the wing and holes for pylon mounting are visible.

Looking carefully at the image I also noticed that the fuselage between the engine nozzles seems to be lower than the rest of the fuselage between the engines... and I suspect that this is the Mig-29M2 whose design is unified with the Mig-29K2 and that this rear fuselage position is lowered for extra space for the tail hook assembly.

The extra pylon position not being used is not totally unusual, and it might be because it was not needed, or it could have been to disguise the difference between the Mig-29M2 and a standard Mig-29.

Not the original Mig-29 had 4 wing pylons while the standard Mig-29 has 6 and the new Mig-29M2 and Mig-29K2 have 8 and the Mig-35 has up to 10 wing pylons.

Russian commander says MiG-35 equal to U.S. F-35 fighter

The Russian military will use new MiG-35D multirole fighters as an equal to the U.S. F-35 fighters, the Air Force chief said on Tuesday.

"We have not given up on the MiG-35D light aircraft project, but we will transfer to the T-50 [heavy fighter] in the future," Gen. Alexander Zelin, the Russian Air Force commander, said during his visit to the six-day air show MAKS-2011 that opened near Moscow on Tuesday.

The U.S. Air Force began using the F-22 fifth generation fighter in the 2000s. America is now developing a lighter and less expensive version, the F-35.

The MiG-35 is an advanced derivative of the MiG-29, which uses air-to-air and air-to-surface guided missiles and the Zhuk A radar (Zhuk AE in exports).


http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110816/165828040.html

He did not say it is equal to the F-35. He meant it will play a similar "multiplier" role that the F-35 plays within the USAF.
It is still a curious claim, because as of no no firm MiG-35 orders are around and it seems unlikely they will order more than the Flanker orders they have already.

Sounds like he is saying that the Russian AF needs a lighter fighter to fill the niche of the Mig-29 in service and that if they bought the Mig-35 it would perform the roles in the Russian AF similar to the F-35 in the USAF.

Even a small batch of Migs would make it a much more viable export prospect and the work generated would be done in factories that don't make Flankers so would otherwise be idle.

The investment into the Mig-35 will pay later when it comes time to make a light 5th gen fighter to make up numbers and replace non stealthy fighters in the 2025+ period... which could lead later on to an unmanned version of a UCAV.

F-35 role in USAF isn't clear however. I think its more a combat area strike fighter. It cant replace the F-15E as an interdictor because it has shorter range and also if it is loaded with heavier and longer missiles like JASSM it loses its stealth capability.

I think MiG-35/New stealth CAS combination can play that role in RuAF.

What do u think?

Originally the role of the F-35 was supposed to replace pretty much every fixed wing aircraft in the USAF and USN and Marines except for the F-15C... which was to be replaced by the F-22.

The dramatic reduction in F-22 numbers however means it can't even replace the F-15C fully, so I expect the F-15C will remain in service longer together with the F-22, while the F-35 if it ever enters service in the numbers they want will replace a range of aircraft including F-16, A-10, AV-8, F/A-18 etc etc.

The result was supposed to be F-35 and F-22 for USAF and F-18 Super Hornet and F-35 for the USN and F-35 for the Marines with the latter being the VSTOL model.

The real result is hard to predict and really depends on the final airframe cost of the F-35 because it might end up in a similar mess to the F-22 where a high price to replace existing aircraft... that quite frankly wouldn't need replacing if they hadn't been overused and neglected all this time... but they are being neglected because they don't want to sabotage the F-35 program...

For the Russians things are totally different because the PAK FA can benefit from the US experience of 5th gen fighter programs and the Flankers and Fulcrums are both ready for production if needed with Su-30s and Su-35s still in demand and production and the Mig-29K also in production and potential for the Mig-29M2 and Mig-35 available if needed, the Russians have choices and options the US doesn't really have... especially when you add that the Su-34 long range strike capability is new and in production and the upgrades of the Tu-22M3 plus the upgrades of the Strategic bomber force give them choices in terms of heavy carpet bombing to heavy precision bombing capability against a lot tech enemy... I would imagine that a few Tu-22M3 Backfires with up to 24 tons of TV and laser and satellite guided bombs and two Damocles targeting pods would be devastating with a couple of Su-34s equipped for a SEAD mission with jammers and ARMs. The four man crew of the upgraded Backfire could engage multiple targets with the damocles pods finding coordinates for fixed targets and lasing moving targets and getting TV locks on other targets... the enemy wont know what hit them.

What they could really do with is a light single seat fighter like a Yak-130, but with a single seat and a single engine.

The new engine for the Mig-35 would be a good start as 5.4 tons in dry would be more than is currently installed in the Yak-130 which is something like 2 x 2250kg thrust.

The replacement of the two existing engines and replacement with one should reduce complication.

The AESA radar being developed for the naval Ka-52 would be a useful radar for a small fighter, and the capacity to carry 8 AAMs plus a centreline targeting pod would make it a useful light fighter.

Used together with ground, air and space based radar sources it could be used as a missile carrier in case of a mass attack... having lots of aircraft in the air with large numbers of AAMs would be a useful defence against a mass cruise missile attack, or UAVs. In combat Su-35s can fly high and orbit areas scanning with their own radars and IR sensors and combining that with data from ground and air and space based sensors and then passing targets off to smaller lighter fighters that could accelerate climb to supersonic speed and medium to high altitude (with 9 tons of thrust instead of 4.5 it should be a supersonic bird over short distances) where a launch of RVV-BDs and R-77Ms will give you an excellent chance of a kill without using up weapons on Su-35s and PAK FAs. The light fighters can then land and refuel and rearm and take to the air again to hunt down any leakers.

The main problem with the Mig-35/Mig-29 is that it was too similar to the Su-27 in performance and cost.

What they needed was something much cheaper and simpler that became capable in numbers.

Su-30MK series will costs lot more than the MiG-29M1/M2. For example, the last batch of 40 Su-30MKI deal with India is around $100million/unit.

So MiG-29M1/M2 does have the cost advantage and they can use it for duty around Georgia (& Kaliningrad region), which does not require longer ranged Su-30 class of fighters.

There are lots of places, especially in the more densely populated western areas of Russia where a big aircraft with long range is no advantage at all, and in these places the Mig-29M2 would be ideal.

GarryB wrote:There are lots of places, especially in the more densely populated western areas of Russia where a big aircraft with long range is no advantage at all, and in these places the Mig-29M2 would be ideal.

western europe including caucasus also, 80-100 MiG-35 would be ideal to replace old models which had no air to ground capability. I also indicate some great possibilities export cases in countries like serbia (now with a more pro-russian government), burma (if they order more MiGs), peru (to counter chilean F-16 purchases), and why not egypt since it would be difficult for americans to sell more F-16s to a radical muslim government due to israeli disagreement

The only thing wrong with the Mig-29 is that it is not a Su-27.

It is a very capable aircraft in its own right and in the later models like the Mig-29M2 and Mig-35 is a very capable fighter aircraft. With new and next generation missiles these aircraft will become even more capable.

I would expect that the Mig-29M2 and Mig-35 will be compatible with the new RVV-BD 200km range AAM that will give these Migs F-14D/Phoeniz like interceptor performance. Imagine a weapon load of 2 RVV_BD on the inner two pylons, with R-27ET long range IR guided AAMs on the next set of pylons with the next two pylons carrying the RVV-SD 110km range R-77s and the two outer pylons fitted with RVV-MD close range Archers for close combat or for closing in with smaller targets like UAVs or cruise missile targets.

A very potent interceptor...

George,

Yes, I too feel there is enough room for 80-100 (or more) MiG-29M1/M2/35 in the AF and this can be effectively employed in the caucus region for the Georgians and if need be for the Turks.


Garry,

True, with long range weapons it would be a very good interceptor. I think, RAC-MiG need to integrate the R-37 missiles on to the MiG-29s as soon as possible. It would be a very good asset to have on the carrier deck considering that it will help the MiG-29K/KUBs to takeout any opponents eyes and ears in the sky at longer distance!

I do understand that there is currently the Kh-31P series to do similar duty up to a range of 250Km (?), but the R-37 class of missiles is going to enlarge that envelope even further.

btw, was there any plan to integrate R-37s on the MiG-29s or any current plans that I missed?

R-37 would be useless for any MiG-29s that the RuAF has (or even MiG-35 given how much better other platforms are for it) so I don't think the idea was ever floated.

MiG-29M2 in RuAF??

Not sure if the video states any timeline by which it will enter the Russian Air Force ( RuAF) given the fact that the Mig 29 M2 entered its trials in late 2011 only . It made it's debut in Astana earlier this year and there is a good possibility that Kazakhstan will be the first buyer . This makes sense because the Mig 29 M2 from the very onset was supposed to be an export variant though it was said that an offer was made to the Russian Defense Ministry as well.

Question is why would the RuAF need the Mig 29 M 2 when it already has the MIG 29SMT ?

AFAIK , as far as MIGs' are concerned the Russian Defence Ministry have placed orders this year only for the upgraded MiG-29SMT fighters and the carrierborne MiG-29K/KUB aircraft .

There are hardly any difference between the MIG 29UPG that the Indian Air Force flies ( it's a single seater though) and the MIG 29 M2 , though I suspect that the latter has a reduced ferry range.

Actually the MiG-29M2 is a lot more advanced than the UPG, in terms of airframe. The range is much better without the strap on spine tank.
The UPG still has the vanilla Fulcrum airframe, same with SMT.
The M2 has the second gen airframe, shared with miG-29K and MiG-35.
They do share the Zhuk-M, but the M2 has quite a few systems installed that the SMT does not.

If they do buy new MiG, I do think they must get them with Zhuk-AE, which I guess makes the plane the MiG-35. Desginations are a bit confusing.

The Mig-29M2 is definitely a new design compared with old model Mig-29s.

Mig learned the lesson from Sukhoi that the two seater should be fully combat capable, the Mig-29UB had a tiny ranging only radar and was limited to IR, optical, and unguided weapons and as such was not much more than an operational trainer.

The Mig-29M2 is a two seat design, though there is a two seat and a single seat version, it is actually a case that instead of reduced fuel in the twin seat, it is actually a case of slightly more fuel in the single seat model. Both aircraft have the same cockpit canopy layout and structural design.

It is not actually the case that fitting the Mig-29M2 with an AESA makes it a Mig-35, as the Mig-35 has 5th gen avionics including DAS, and upper and lower hemisphere IRST/FLIR designed for air to air and air to ground use.

From what I have read the Russian AF is deciding between Mig-29M2s and Mig-35s and will likely get about 50 of them.

It keeps Mig busy and doesn't tie up factories making other products.

Also it is good for Migs subcontractors like Klimov.

GarryB wrote:The Mig-29M2 is definitely a new design compared with old model Mig-29s.

Mig learned the lesson from Sukhoi that the two seater should be fully combat capable, the Mig-29UB had a tiny ranging only radar and was limited to IR, optical, and unguided weapons and as such was not much more than an operational trainer.

The Mig-29M2 is a two seat design, though there is a two seat and a single seat version, it is actually a case that instead of reduced fuel in the twin seat, it is actually a case of slightly more fuel in the single seat model. Both aircraft have the same cockpit canopy layout and structural design.

It is not actually the case that fitting the Mig-29M2 with an AESA makes it a Mig-35, as the Mig-35 has 5th gen avionics including DAS, and upper and lower hemisphere IRST/FLIR designed for air to air and air to ground use.

From what I have read the Russian AF is deciding between Mig-29M2s and Mig-35s and will likely get about 50 of them.

It keeps Mig busy and doesn't tie up factories making other products.

Also it is good for Migs subcontractors like Klimov.

Ηοw many fighters you think that Russia needs? I think about 1000

AFAIK , as far as MIGs' are concerned the Russian Defence Ministry have placed orders this year only for the upgraded MiG-29SMT fighters and the carrierborne MiG-29K/KUB aircraft .

I know they ordered Mig-29K/KUB, but not that they ordered Mig-29SMT. How many Mig-29SMT they ordered and will they be new build or modernized existing planes?

The Mig-29M2 is a two seat design, though there is a two seat and a single seat version, it is actually a case that instead of reduced fuel in the twin seat, it is actually a case of slightly more fuel in the single seat model. Both aircraft have the same cockpit canopy layout and structural design.

It is not actually the case that fitting the Mig-29M2 with an AESA makes it a Mig-35, as the Mig-35 has 5th gen avionics including DAS, and upper and lower hemisphere IRST/FLIR designed for air to air and air to ground use.

Will Mig-35 be single seater or two seater? I have a feeling, that RuAF will go in the same way with Migs as with Flankers, where they buy single seater Su-35 and two seater Su-30SM. Single seater Su-35 and Mig-35 would be dedicated air to air fighers, two seater Mig-29M2 and Su-30SM could be more multirole fighters, better suited for ground attack and SEAD missions because of second operator in back seat.

TR1 wrote:Actually the MiG-29M2 is a lot more advanced than the UPG, in terms of airframe. The range is much better without the strap on spine tank.
The UPG still has the vanilla Fulcrum airframe, same with SMT.
The M2 has the second gen airframe, shared with miG-29K and MiG-35.
They do share the Zhuk-M, but the M2 has quite a few systems installed that the SMT does not.

That's true , however you are comparing the M2 with the older variant of the UPG . Not the upgraded. The upgraded version has rectified all the "shortcomings" of the earlier variant.Infact once upgradation is complete I understand the term UPG will become history . The new nomenclature is Mig 29 SMT. Even here in India upgradation work is currently underway & will be completed in all likelihood by 2014 .

medo wrote:
I know they ordered Mig-29K/KUB, but not that they ordered Mig-29SMT. How many Mig-29SMT they ordered and will they be new build or modernized existing planes?

The MIG 29 SMT is a modernized version of the MIG 29 SM. They can easily be upgraded to the SMT version. Sorry for my oversight in my previous post . I gave the impression that orders for the Mig 29 SMT & Mig 29K/KUB were both placed this year.

The RuAF is receiving the upgraded MIG 29 SMT this year . This is not a new order however, the Russian Defense Ministry is deciding between the MIG 29M/M2 & the MIG 35 to be procured between 2015 & 2020.It depends on the stipulation of the government's armament program.

medo wrote:
Will Mig-35 be single seater or two seater? I have a feeling, that RuAF will go in the same way with Migs as with Flankers, where they buy single seater Su-35 and two seater Su-30SM. Single seater Su-35 and Mig-35 would be dedicated air to air fighers, two seater Mig-29M2 and Su-30SM could be more multirole fighters, better suited for ground attack and SEAD missions because of second operator in back seat.

Two seater for the MIG 35D only not the MIG 35.

Ηοw many fighters you think that Russia needs? I think about 1000

It is hard to say, if they get 250 PAK FAs (eventually), then about 100 Su-35s and lets say another 150 Su-30s/Su-27SM2, then we have 500 odd Sukhois, which is a good start. AFAIK the plans are for 50 odd Mig-29M2/35, and perhaps 100 Mig-29SMT upgrades of which they already have about 30 odd, and if you add 100 Mig-31s that are to be upgraded by 2020 at a bare minimum, and perhaps add another 150 that wont be upgraded but still might be available for use and perhaps 200 Su-27s and Mig-29s with minor upgrades that still might be in service and we end up with about 1,100 aircraft, but of course the numbers of old model Flankers and Fulcrums will decline fairly rapidly.

The Russian AF has an enormous area to cover, but with a 1 million man armed force they can't afford to have thousands of aircraft any more.

Fortunately for them the improvement in electronics and technology will allow a significant overlap in performance, so instead of having a Mig-27M ground attack unit and a Mig-23 fighter group, they can have a Mig-29M2 air group that can engage air and ground targets much more effectively than either of the older dedicated aircraft could manage thanks to new multi mode radars and sophisticated modern guided weaponry.

Will Mig-35 be single seater or two seater?

The Mig-29M2 and Mig-35 share the same aircraft structure, though with some fairly significant differences in terms of wing wiring and the location of sensors and avionics. The Mig-35 has the same long canopy that allows for single and two seat arrangements.

Single seater Su-35 and Mig-35 would be dedicated air to air fighers, two seater Mig-29M2 and Su-30SM could be more multirole fighters, better suited for ground attack and SEAD missions because of second operator in back seat.

Actually two seat '35s would offer operational training options while at the same time offering light strike, air command and other roles where the front seater focuses on flying the mission and the back seater can concentrate on other things... incredibly useful when things get busy...

Of course the 5th gen avionics should be able to minimise the pilots work load by only showing pertinent information... in the middle of a dog fight the pilot does not need to know that the oil levels have dropped by a few litres since they took off an hour ago for instance. If however the oil is dropping rapidly and needs attention then it might be something that either needs automatic attention or the pilots attention to prevent the aircraft dropping from the sky.

Two seater for the MIG 35D only not the MIG 35.

So what you are saying is that the Mig-35D is the two seat Mig-35?

I rather suspect they have changed from the tradition UB to denote the fact that the new aircraft is fully operational rather than a reduced range radarless training aircraft. Perhaps D for double as in two seat?

The Mig-29K2, Mig-29M2, and Mig-35 all share the same airframe/cockpit design which allows single seat or two seat arrangements without reducing fuel or changing the length of the aircraft or removing radars to compensate for the weight change.

Very simply the aircraft was designed with the second pilot in mind. When that pilot is not there (ie in a single seat configuration) that area is used for fuel and other bits and pieces.

GarryB wrote:So what you are saying is that the Mig-35D is the two seat Mig-35?

Precisely . There are hardly any difference between the two . Service ceiling , max overload , the whole nine .

Below is a picture of the MIG 35 (I had seen this same aircraft model in Aero India ). Notice it has 2 seats though on the outside it is written MIG 35. Infact I haven't so far come across any MIG 35 that has MIG 35D written anywhere on the outside of the aircraft, fuselage , wings etc. For countries that do not need two seat Mig 35 , they can have additional fuel tanks , equipments etc in place of that second seat.



Andrey Fomin came out with a vivid layout of the MIG 35 / MIG 35D which I feel till date is the best drawing presented in print . Please find the layout below :

Ηοw many fighters you think that Russia needs? I think about 1000

I would say 1000+ fighters. Russia have large air space to defend.

Fortunately for them the improvement in electronics and technology will allow a significant overlap in performance, so instead of having a Mig-27M ground attack unit and a Mig-23 fighter group, they can have a Mig-29M2 air group that can engage air and ground targets much more effectively than either of the older dedicated aircraft could manage thanks to new multi mode radars and sophisticated modern guided weaponry.

True. But there will be still the same number of pilots. Before you have two types of single seaters, fighters who cares for air combat and attackers, who concentrate on ground targets, while fighters protect them. Multirole Mig-29M2 or Mig-35 must have two seats, where pilot is concentrated in flying and air combat, while second member is in the mean time trying to hit something on the ground. One pilot could not do both at the same time.

In my opinion RuAF ordered both Su-35 and Su-30SM in the same way, to have single seat Su-35 air defense fighter and two seat miltirole Su-30SM fighter. I think Mig-29M2 or Mig-35 will also be two seat multirole fighter.