MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

Do they have a double luncher rail for missiles in Russia ? Like those we can see on F-15 which can carry 2 AAMRAM. There is space between the engine and the first pylon on mig-35 for 2 (even 3) R-77 instead of 1 which coud bring the total load to 8 R-77 + 2 R-73

It is the US that is going for internal weapons carriage stealth fighters with maybe 4-6 missiles per aircraft.

Carrying dozens of missiles at one time is not actually a good thing... take note of fighter aircraft actually in a war situation and you will see fuel tanks and jamming pods and a couple of AAMs only.

The R-77 has a catapult built into its launcher so having multiple missiles on one pylon is not practical as the missile needs to be thrown down and clear of the aircraft before its motor fires up to ensure clean separation from the aircraft...

It is more likely the long range SAMs are replacement for the interceptor fighters..

Means more SAM require less interceptor.

In peace time you need something that can fly out to a target and inspect it before deciding what to do... ie civilian airliner or cruise missile...

It is the US that is going for internal weapons carriage stealth fighters with maybe 4-6 missiles per aircraft.

Carrying dozens of missiles at one time is not actually a good thing... take note of fighter aircraft actually in a war situation and you will see fuel tanks and jamming pods and a couple of AAMs only.

The R-77 has a catapult built into its launcher so having multiple missiles on one pylon is not practical as the missile needs to be thrown down and clear of the aircraft before its motor fires up to ensure clean separation from the aircraft...

For multirole mission it's better to have more pylons so you can have bombs and missiles. Not the Russian way to do things but export clients don't have lot of bombers that will fly with the Migs.

It's not that expensive to develop and so you can propose it as an option to the export market. Egypt ordered targeting pod with it's Mig-35 so it's better for them to have 2 more pylons.

Argentina is thinking about getting some Mig-29

https://sputniknews.com/business/201701271050058782-russia-argentina-mig-29/

Isos wrote:

It is the US that is going for internal weapons carriage stealth fighters with maybe 4-6 missiles per aircraft.

Carrying dozens of missiles at one time is not actually a good thing... take note of fighter aircraft actually in a war situation and you will see fuel tanks and jamming pods and a couple of AAMs only.

The R-77 has a catapult built into its launcher so having multiple missiles on one pylon is not practical as the missile needs to be thrown down and clear of the aircraft before its motor fires up to ensure clean separation from the aircraft...

For multirole mission it's better to have more pylons so you can have bombs and missiles. Not the Russian way to do things but export clients don't have lot of bombers that will fly with the Migs.

It's not that expensive to develop and so you can propose it as an option to the export market. Egypt ordered targeting pod with it's Mig-35 so it's better for them to have 2 more pylons.

There are Sov/Russian multiple pylons even in modern planes: one widely used is the one sporting two KAB-500 bombs in a column instead of a single KAB-1500.
Generally, however the great days of multiple rack pylons are over, as there are not more the necessity to carry an huge amount of iron bombs to somewhat compensate the lack of precision of them like during the Vietnam war.
When it came to missiles carrying two single pylons actually induces lower drag than a twin one.
The only one I would eventually expect on russian side would be ne carrying a double or triple KAB-250 instead of a single KAB-500 in a similar way of the french ones.

Multirole is just as much about what you carry as to how much.

On any mission you need some AAMs, and you need some air to ground weapons.

Weapons like Kh-38 offer the ability to hit a variety of targets with one weapon type.

Newer missiles will have multi sensors so different target types can be engaged.

A weapon like Vikhr or Hermes can be carried in multiple weapon racks (8/6 and 4 respectively) but the idea of having enormous numbers of missiles on every aircraft is not practical... it increases drag and RCS... and aircraft don't operate on their own... so a flight of 4 aircraft multiplies any load by 4 times anyway.

Ordinance has a flight time limit due to temperature and vibration... after a certain amount of time on a wing it will need to be stripped down and checked and tested to make sure it is still OK.... that is not cheap or simple and for 90% of the time a total waste of time.

In Russian AF service Su-27s can be seen with wingtip R-73s, an R-27 under a wing and a few missiles down the centreline... why bother developing multiple weapon racks when existing pylons are not even being fully used?

another waste ,instead of inducting true 5 gen mig with china aka fc-31 type or simmilar , mig and russia is wasting on redoing-4 gen, and this mig has  no aesa radar and no new improved engines rd-33mkm ,no thrust vectoring ,cant even supercruise what the hell... i hope they are not serious with this.

Mig-35 should be comparable to J-10B/C, which is going to remain the most produced and widely used Chinese fighter, regardless of J-31 (and J-20). It's not even clear whether PLAAF is interested in the project, and in any case it's going to take until the early 2020s to finish its development. Like China, Russia needs to replace old fighters.

Rmf wrote:another waste ,instead of inducting true 5 gen mig with china aka fc-31 type or simmilar , mig and russia is wasting on redoing-4 gen, and this mig has  no aesa radar and no new improved engines rd-33mkm ,no thrust vectoring ,cant even supercruise what the hell... i hope they are not serious with this.

Chinese Aircraft are Russian manufactured (Su-30/35), Russian copies (J-11) or based and developed from a Russian design (J-20 -> mig 1.44). Their indigenous 4th generation aircrafts use Russian engines. Their missiles are copies of russian missiles and have the same russian radar seeker.

Chinese technology is still far away from that of Russia or US or EU. Without Russia they would still be armed with Mig 21 copies.

Russia doesn't need china for developping an Aircraft. China needs them.

The new AESA radar for Mig-35 have a range of 260km against a J-10 which still have a doppler radar. Thrust vectoring is well known by Mig and is probably an option for the mig 35. A mig 29 ovt is flying now for a decade with them. They could purchased them if they wanted but Mig-35 is already very manoeuvrable. Supercruise is good for big Sukhoi's which will fly in ennemy teritory, Mig are there for protection of your airspace and they will probably be used at low altitude in ambushes and interception guided by the ground and radar turn off.

China have lot of stuff but they are not that dangerous. They can't achieve to have so much military equipement that a technologicaly advenced opponenet with less equipement would be destroyed. They would need thousands of J-10 to counter the 200 F-22 that USA has now. They are far from this. Let's not talk about the submarines and carriers.

Isos wrote:

Rmf wrote:another waste ,instead of inducting true 5 gen mig with china aka fc-31 type or simmilar , mig and russia is wasting on redoing-4 gen, and this mig has  no aesa radar and no new improved engines rd-33mkm ,no thrust vectoring ,cant even supercruise what the hell... i hope they are not serious with this.

Chinese Aircraft are Russian manufactured (Su-30/35), Russian copies (J-11) or based and developed from a Russian design (J-20 -> mig 1.44). Their indigenous 4th generation aircrafts use Russian engines. Their missiles are copies of russian missiles and have the same russian radar seeker.

Chinese technology is still far away from that of Russia or US or EU. Without Russia they would still be armed with Mig 21 copies.

Russia doesn't need china for developping an Aircraft. China needs them.

The new AESA radar for Mig-35 have a range of 260km against a J-10 which still have a doppler radar. Thrust vectoring is well known by Mig and is probably an option for the mig 35. A mig 29 ovt is flying now for a decade with them. They could purchased them if they wanted but Mig-35 is already very manoeuvrable. Supercruise is good for big Sukhoi's which will fly in ennemy teritory, Mig are there for protection of your airspace and they will probably be used at low altitude in ambushes and interception guided by the ground and radar turn off.

China have lot of stuff but they are not that dangerous. They can't achieve to have so much military equipement that a technologicaly advenced opponenet with less equipement would be destroyed. They would need thousands of J-10 to counter the 200 F-22 that USA has now. They are far from this. Let's not talk about the submarines and carriers.

Totally off-topic, but that is total BS. What is with you Russia fanboys disliking China? Get on with the fucking times. This isn't 1997 (or 2007, for that matter).

J-20 is not a copy of mig 1.44, their newer Flankers use Chinese engines, and it's only a matter of time until their J-10 and J-20 get Chinese engines, probably 5 years or something. J-10Bs have PESA and J-10Cs have AESA. And unlike Mig-35, over 100 have already been built (if you really want to go there). J-20 is supposed to counter F-22, and if you didn't already notice, it's pretty much operational. What's your point anyway? Because Russia has so many 5th generation fighters? Do you know anything about the Chinese shipbuilding program? They're doing extremely well. You obviously know nothing about today's China and its technological capabilities.

Not my fault if they copy everything they do and use russian stuff. Why did they bought Su-35 if they have "Chinese" engines and radars? Where are their civilian aircrafts ? Who is buying their aircraft? Even the poorest country don't want them. It's just a fact that they are still far behind. I'm not saying they don't know to do anything, it's just that they are overestimating their capapilities.

Isos wrote:Not my fault if they copy everything they do and use russian stuff. Why did they bought Su-35 if they have "Chinese" engines and radars? Where are their civilian aircrafts ? Who is buying their aircraft? Even the poorest country don't want them. It's just a fact that they are still far behind.

Could you be a little more biased? How are they copying everything? There are massive double standards... Some of you idiots are going to blame them for copying, no matter what they do. Competing... things tend to look similar, no shit. I really don't get it. What should they look like? Totally alien? Sure, they have certainly copied some weapon systems, like the original J-11A (like everyone else at some point!), but the whole thing is massively exaggerated, especially when we are living in 2017. Your views are totally outdated regarding China.

For one thing, their Su-35 order is quite small and it's probably supposed to compliment J-20, until they get they get production up to speed. Basically they bought some Su-35 because they can and they already have hundreds of Flankers. They also want to see how it compares to their own Flankers, especially the upcoming ones like J-11D and J-16. Not to mention that their airforce is huge and they need to replace the remaining J-7s and J-8 as fast as possible. Su-35 is going to be their last foreign fighter, although they might make an additional order of 24, or something.

Their civilian aircrafts are coming, obviously. Because so many countries make their own civilian aicraft, right? Because Russian civilian aircraft industry was doing so well during the last 25 years? They must be absolutely shit, right? Nope! Look at COMACs current and upcoming projects. Ask that question 10-15 years from now on (same thing with Russia!).  

Chinese weapons exports have been growing quickly, so again, ask that question 10-15 years from now on. They're already number 3. And they're exporting aircraft. The issue is partially that their airforce needs all the new fighters they can get off the production line. True, many of them are still using Russian engines, so they can't export them for that reason. The US and Russia obviously have a huge advantage in traditions and history. Building same kind of relations with foreign customers is going to take time.

BUT THIS IS OFF-TOPIC AND MIG-35 IS GOING TO BE A GREAT AICRAFT.

Could you be a little more biased? How are they copying everything? There are massive double standards... Some of you idiots are going to blame them for copying, no matter what they do. Competing... things tend to look similar, no shit. I really don't get it. What should they look like? Totally alien? Sure, they have certainly copied some weapon systems, like the original J-11A (like everyone else at some point!), but the whole thing is massively exaggerated, especially when we are living in 2017. Your views are totally outdated regarding China.

Someone is not an idiot because he doesn't have your opinion... The last missile they presented was a chinese Oniks ... so yes they still copy. Russia has a stragtegy, all their stuff is made to be use in their strategy. China copy Russian, US an EU and they put all that in a system they copied too. They have no strategy. That's not exagerated. All their army is a clone from red army and now they are updating it with western technologies in russian hardwars.

For one thing, their Su-35 order is quite small and it's probably supposed to compliment J-20, until they get they get production up to speed. Basically they bought some Su-35 because they can and they already have hundreds of Flankers. They also want to see how it compares to their own Flankers, especially the upcoming ones like J-11D and J-16. Not to mention that their airforce is huge and they need to replace the remaining J-7s and J-8 as fast as possible. Su-35 is going to be their last foreign fighter, although they might make an additional order of 24, or something.

24 Su-35 and a lot more engines. And we all know they bought them because they want to copy the engines. No need to bought 24 of them to compare with their J-11, they are better in every point and Russia gave them an export model not Russia's domestical. They have ther "state of art" J-10 to replace J-7 and J-8 ... what happen with them ? Not very logical. It's like russia starting to produce Mig-35 and replace it's mig-29 with J-10 ...

Their civilian aircrafts are coming, obviously. Because so many countries make their own civilian aicraft, right? Because Russian civilian aircraft industry was doing so well during the last 25 years? They must be absolutely shit, right? Nope! Look at COMACs current and upcoming projects. Ask that question 10-15 years from now on (same thing with Russia!).

No need to wait 15 years to ak. Russia is already sold Sukhoi superjet 100 to lot of countries, even to western one... And 15 years ago they didn't have to eat in there country.

Chinese weapons exports have been growing quickly, so again, ask that question 10-15 years from now on. They're already number 3. And they're exporting aircraft. The issue is partially that their airforce needs all the new fighters they can get off the production line. True, many of them are still using Russian engines, so they can't export them for that reason. The US and Russia obviously have a huge advantage in traditions and history. Building same kind of relations with foreign customers is going to take time.

What weapons have been exported ? Anti tank missiles and basic weapons. Surely not advanced. Egypt is a client of China but they still didn't bought Frigates, fighters and tanks. They went for US and, France and Russia's stuff. Relation are not that important. If Chinese stuff was thta good they would have buy it.

BUT THIS IS OFF-TOPIC AND MIG-35 IS GOING TO BE A GREAT AICRAFT

I Agree.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Rmf wrote:another waste ,instead of inducting true 5 gen mig with china aka fc-31 type or simmilar , mig and russia is wasting on redoing-4 gen, and this mig has  no aesa radar and no new improved engines rd-33mkm ,no thrust vectoring ,cant even supercruise what the hell... i hope they are not serious with this.

The MiG-35 does have an AESA radar, and uses the latest RD-33MK (the MKM is still under development)...  In any case, the MiG-35 is clearly a short-medium term solution to the need of fielding new light fighters to complement the PAK FA in service.  It doesn't need stealth or supercruise or TVC, it just needs to be relatively low cost, and carry 5G sensors and weapons.  The F-35 doesn't have TVC and has no real supercruise ability (just a short spurt ~200kms) so whats the issue?

Russian philosophy has always been to leverage the maximum out of an existing design and manufacturing infrastructure and talent pool.  A true 5G light fighter will take ~10 years to develop to IOC, so Russia needs to fill the gap, and the MiG-35 is a logical move.

Plus there is probably a pretty good export market for them.

You're so ridiculously uniformed about China, but you still act like you know something about the subject = an idiot, more or less. Your opinion is so extreme, that's my problem with it. How was it an Oniks? Based on what? Some anti-Chinese media speculation? Because they are both anti-ship missiles with a similar range? Wow, must be a copy!!11 What a load of BS. And yes, they have a "strategy", that is exactly the point. They have the national power to develop their own technology, military included. Chinese are extremely smart, well educated and nowadays they have a huge R&D and military budget. That's why they are suddenly "copying" everything so well. Don't you get it!? The whole fucking thing is totally obvious. The change is absolutely massive, their modernization has been extremely impressive. All but childish Sinophobe haters can see that. The world's largest economy in purchasing power parity is able to develop aka "copy" modern military technologies, how can that be!? Why didn't they "copy" this well decades ago?

Yes? And have you ever heard of Comac C919? I mentioned (up to) 15 years because the - incidentally Sino-Russian - wide-body airliner C929 is going to be introduced around 2025, and it's probably some years after that, let's say by 2030, when BOTH Russia and China will be able to fully challenge the duopoly of Airbus and Boeing. If it's wasn't obvious already, I didn't downplay the Russian capabilities, but direct comparisons until the 2010s are not fair, because China used to poor as shit, but that isn't the case anymore. Of course it's going to take some time, just like Russia after the 90s.

Oh, sure, they're also interested in the engines. But first of all, Russians are not stupid, they've learned their lessons. And copying would probably take quite long. They're going to learn things, take some inspiration, etc. It's not black and white. And the "Chinese can't build engines at all, they just copy" meme is particularly stupid. As I said, it's a mixed bag. They actually have domestic engines on many fighters and other aircraft, as I said. They're investing huge sums in their development. Engine's really are particularly tough nut to crack, right? The Soviets copied some early western jet engines, right? Man, the Soviet military technology was so bad? Of course not. Double standards, again. The WS-15 engine for J-20 should be ready around 2020. Can we have this discussion then?

And of course relations and traditions are important. Russia and US are still largely exporting to same countries as they did decades ago. Russia doesn't export a lot of military technology to the west. Does that mean its shit? It has all to do with politics. As I said, the trend is clear. Chinese exports are growing fast, what else do you want? Wait.
http://www.popsci.com/dragon-muscles-in-growing-number-victories-in-chinese-arms-exports

I'm personally done with the subject.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Rmf wrote:another waste ,instead of inducting true 5 gen mig with china aka fc-31 type or simmilar , mig and russia is wasting on redoing-4 gen, and this mig has  no aesa radar and no new improved engines rd-33mkm ,no thrust vectoring ,cant even supercruise what the hell... i hope they are not serious with this.

The MiG-35 does have an AESA radar, and uses the latest RD-33MK (the MKM is still under development)...  In any case, the MiG-35 is clearly a short-medium term solution to the need of fielding new light fighters to complement the PAK FA in service.  It doesn't need stealth or supercruise or TVC, it just needs to be relatively low cost, and carry 5G sensors and weapons.  The F-35 doesn't have TVC and has no real supercruise ability (just a short spurt ~200kms) so whats the issue?

Russian philosophy has always been to leverage the maximum out of an existing design and manufacturing infrastructure and talent pool.  A true 5G light fighter will take ~10 years to develop to IOC, so Russia needs to fill the gap, and the MiG-35 is a logical move.

no it doesnt , prove it!
It lacks everything of those, and brings no improvement- like stealth which is not that hard to implement today if we look at fc-31.

If you think China is a leader in technologies and that they are not copying it's your problem. You should go check your eyes however. I'm done too with this.

no it doesnt , prove it!
It lacks everything of those, and brings no improvement- like stealth which is not that hard to implement today if we look at fc-31.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000498135.pdf

Here is a link of a cia paper about soviet rcs reduction capabilities, read it it's very interesting. Even US admit that they have a pretty good capabilities about stealth. There are other tools for reducing rcs, like composite materials which are used on Mig-35 to reduce its rcs not to make it a stealth fighter. I've read they manage to reduce 5 times its rcs compare to Mig-29 which is widely suggested to be about 5 m² so Mig-35 is somthing like 1m². The new engines are smokeless and the radar will be an AESA. They proposed it to India long time ago.

And here is a nice picture of it :

Several more things to add to equation:

1) Prior to Syrian war Russia had no pressing need for light fighter because it never expected to run into these types of wars. But in Syria they ended up going after low threat targets for which Flankers were simply overkill.
Look at Syria. Majority of heavy lifting is done by Su-24. While it is replaced by Su-30/34 in various branches a need popped up for cheap alternative that will carry out this type of low priority grunt work.
Sending Flankers after Toyotas is not most efficient option from financial standpoint.

2) Exports. Not all customers can afford or need Flanker sized planes. That is where MiG-35 comes in. Option for smaller militaries.

displayed and operational and in production is different thing. nope it doesnt ,that indian proposal was just a mock up. http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis-photo-report-aviation-defence-industry/aviation-defence-industry-technology/3257-mikoyan-mig-35-in-full-details-specifications-performances-weapons-sensors.html

Rmf wrote:displayed and operational and in production is different thing. nope it doesnt ,that indian proposal was just a mock up. http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis-photo-report-aviation-defence-industry/aviation-defence-industry-technology/3257-mikoyan-mig-35-in-full-details-specifications-performances-weapons-sensors.html

Can you explain why an AESA is so important for an interceptor aircraft?

Big_Gazza wrote:
 Go away 5th-columnist Atlantacist twerp...

Ten gold stars for the use, in context, of the word 'twerp'.