MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

The multi-role radar with active phased array provides for advantage over the competitors due to the following factors:
– extended range of operating frequencies;
– increased quantity of detected, tracked and attacked targets;
– possibility of simultaneous attack of air and ground targets;
– extended detection range;
– enhanced resolution in the surface mapping mode;
– high jamming protection and survivability.

http://www.migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/new-unified-family-of-the-fighters/mig-35-mig-35d

GarryB wrote:

The multi-role radar with active phased array provides for advantage over the competitors due to the following factors:
– extended range of operating frequencies;
– increased quantity of detected, tracked and attacked targets;
– possibility of simultaneous attack of air and ground targets;
– extended detection range;
– enhanced resolution in the surface mapping mode;
– high jamming protection and survivability.

http://www.migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/new-unified-family-of-the-fighters/mig-35-mig-35d

An interceptor will use the ground control to found the target, and if possible it won't switch on its radars.
Even when it switch it on it will be when it is in close proximity to its target, so neither the technology of the radar, neither the low observation characteristic of the target matter.

And the late generation mixed ode Russian radars are pretty good in performance ,and could be better than many aesa radar.

Singular_Transform wrote:

GarryB wrote:

The multi-role radar with active phased array provides for advantage over the competitors due to the following factors:
– extended range of operating frequencies;
– increased quantity of detected, tracked and attacked targets;
– possibility of simultaneous attack of air and ground targets;
– extended detection range;
– enhanced resolution in the surface mapping mode;
– high jamming protection and survivability.

http://www.migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/new-unified-family-of-the-fighters/mig-35-mig-35d

An interceptor will use the ground control to found the target, and if possible it won't switch on its radars.
Even when it switch it on it will be when it is in close proximity to its target, so neither the technology of the radar, neither the low observation characteristic  of the target matter.

And the late generation mixed ode Russian radars are pretty good in performance ,and could be better than many aesa radar.  

Performance has nothing to do with the type of antenna used, AESA radar proposed for f-16 update have still inferior performance that the conformal one of the Eurofighter.
Tactical advantage is however a much more greater scan velocity i.e. greater refresh rate and the possibility to emitting different wave forms at the same time.
In the case of AESA you add also the possibility to emit at different frequencies : one optimized for A2A , one for A2G, one for tracking etc, etc...
Obviously this liberty is not absolute: emitting in many frequencies means to split the overall power between each of them.
So it is more advantage for multirole fighters that are so able to use the radar more than for AD ones in which the emission power is instead a .
Actual PESA radars on Flankers are actually hybrids, powered by an external source when transmitting but instead having a separate receiving capability for each of their antenna elements.
This allow the antenna plate to be lighter and being so capable to be mechanically steered so to achieve a way higher field of view.
quite easily.

Rmf wrote:

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.

The FC 31 is a copy of the carrier ready Mig 29 chassis. And like everything in China, it can't move without Russian engines.The FC 31 could still be axed. Its a tech demonstrator basically.

And as someone already said, Russia turned the tables in Syria, and put Russia back on the geopolitical game table, leaning on the su 24.

Pierre Sprey wrote:

Rmf wrote:

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.

The FC 31 is a copy of the carrier ready Mig 29 chassis. And like everything in China, it can't move without Russian engines.The FC 31 could still be axed. Its a tech demonstrator basically.

And as someone already said, Russia turned the tables in Syria, and put Russia back on the geopolitical game table,  leaning on the su 24.

Su-24, like the F-111 and the Tornado, when they are getting their due pace upgrades obviously , is still an hell of an attack/bomber plane, having specialized features, like very low level handling and adjustable wings, that the multirole fighters that have taken their place can only dream about.

marcellogo wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

GarryB wrote:

The multi-role radar with active phased array provides for advantage over the competitors due to the following factors:
– extended range of operating frequencies;
– increased quantity of detected, tracked and attacked targets;
– possibility of simultaneous attack of air and ground targets;
– extended detection range;
– enhanced resolution in the surface mapping mode;
– high jamming protection and survivability.

http://www.migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/new-unified-family-of-the-fighters/mig-35-mig-35d

An interceptor will use the ground control to found the target, and if possible it won't switch on its radars.
Even when it switch it on it will be when it is in close proximity to its target, so neither the technology of the radar, neither the low observation characteristic  of the target matter.

And the late generation mixed ode Russian radars are pretty good in performance ,and could be better than many aesa radar.  

Performance has nothing to do with the type of antenna used, AESA radar proposed for f-16 update have still inferior performance that the conformal one of the Eurofighter.
Tactical advantage is however a much more greater scan velocity i.e. greater refresh rate and the possibility to emitting different wave forms at the same time.
In the case of AESA you add also the possibility to emit at different frequencies : one optimized for A2A , one for A2G, one for tracking etc, etc...
Obviously this liberty is not absolute: emitting in many frequencies means to split the overall power between each of them.
So it is more advantage for multirole fighters that are so able to use the radar more than for AD ones in which the emission power is instead a .
Actual PESA radars on Flankers are actually hybrids, powered by an external source when transmitting but instead having a separate receiving capability for each of their antenna elements.
This allow the antenna plate to be lighter and being so capable to be mechanically steered so to achieve a way higher field of view.
quite easily.

So, I think the refresh rate needs a bit more proof, because I can't see why a travelling tube could has less refresh rate than an aesa.

The multiple frequency at the same time drastically reduce the performance of the radar, and the effective emitting area.

Means it can be nice and good in theory, but in practice I don't think anyone will use it .

And actually it is possible to do with pesa radar this tick, by increasing the number of tubes.

The main advantage of the AESA vs PESA is the increased robustness, less critical breakdown , higher reliability.

Oh, and cheaper manufacturing cost : )

The Mig-35 is not meant to be just an interceptor like Mig-29. The main goal of the AESA is to make it able to work by itself without ground support and do lot of things the Mig-29 couldn't. Without ground support and with its simple radar, Mig-29 proved to be not as effective as it should. The AESA radar change the way the fighter will be used.

Isos wrote:The Mig-35 is not meant to be just an interceptor like Mig-29. The main goal of the AESA is to make it able to work by itself without ground support and do lot of things the Mig-29 couldn't. Without ground support and with its simple radar, Mig-29 proved to be not as effective as it should. The AESA radar change the way the fighter will be used.

The mig-29 is a small aircraft, means an AESA radar on it won`t be as good as a PESA radar on the su-35.

Simply due to the radar size.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuk_(radar)
nope it has same radar as mig-29K so no aesa , but it can be replaced and upgraded they say. thats why its cheap and a gap filler.
so nothing spectacular , no vectored thrust , no supercruise , no aesa ,no new rd-33mkm engines ....
https://youtu.be/vytYpA28S5w?t=1m29s

Pierre Sprey wrote:

Rmf wrote:

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.

The FC 31 is a copy of the carrier ready Mig 29 chassis. And like everything in China, it can't move without Russian engines.The FC 31 could still be axed. Its a tech demonstrator basically.

And as someone already said, Russia turned the tables in Syria, and put Russia back on the geopolitical game table,  leaning on the su 24.

ok ,maybe not fc-31 but something simmilar in a joint venrture as i said before , fc-31 is still prototype and having modifications and its a work in progress so not too late for russia to join. russia is waisting money on this mig-29 rehash model.

as we are all discussing , the trendy subject is the mig 35 right ? well as the customs say the national interest just HAS to make an article to trash out any russian hardware , so for your enjoyment you may wanna look at this xD : http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-mig-35-has-big-secret-time-nato-will-be-pleased-19246

-Another piece of trash article signed dave majumdar .

Singular_Transform wrote:

Isos wrote:The Mig-35 is not meant to be just an interceptor like Mig-29. The main goal of the AESA is to make it able to work by itself without ground support and do lot of things the Mig-29 couldn't. Without ground support and with its simple radar, Mig-29 proved to be not as effective as it should. The AESA radar change the way the fighter will be used.

The mig-29 is  a small aircraft, means an AESA radar on it won`t be as good as a PESA radar on the su-35.

Simply due to the radar size.

Why are you comparing it to SU-35 ??? It's not a reason to not put AESA on Mig-35.

HM1199 wrote:as we are all discussing , the trendy subject is the mig 35 right ? well as the customs say the national interest just HAS to make an article to trash out any russian hardware , so  for your enjoyment you may wanna look at this xD : http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-mig-35-has-big-secret-time-nato-will-be-pleased-19246

-Another piece of trash article signed dave majumdar .

" My source told me", Americans and their secret sources ...

"Just for export" , they ordered 30 last week +140 more to come...

" Putin ", they talk more about Putin than Putin's propaganda ...

Funny Dave has never given any data on its articles, it's always " 'Muricaaa the best " I'm sure he has an acount on F-16.net

xD a "source told me" ye right we belive you
also , mig 35 has aesa , idk from where he got that the 35 has a MSA

Rmf wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuk_(radar)
nope it has same radar as mig-29K so no aesa , but it can be replaced and upgraded they say. thats why its cheap and a gap filler.
so nothing spectacular , no vectored thrust , no supercruise , no aesa ,no new rd-33mkm engines ....
https://youtu.be/vytYpA28S5w?t=1m29s

MiG-29M2 is the gap filler, but why believe the information I posted from the company that makes the MiG-35 and instead believe the crap on wiki because that was probably written by some 15 year old american kid... and they know everything because they have the internet.

One another advantage is that the radar will not be restricted to planar shape, we can bend its surface as much as we can, since we can adjust the phase shift and frequency of each element to change the sum emitted wave.

Radars on T-50 wing edges and hull sides is just the beginning step. In the future, who know somebody may coat much of the aircraft surface with radar elements...

– extended detection range;
– enhanced resolution in the surface mapping mode;

I haven't gotten it yet. The range and resolution should depends on radar power and antenna size, rather than AESA or PESA, don't they ?

In fact, I think, AESA requires more complicate and careful synchronization between each elements, and that is why F-22's AESA suffered from myopia, isn't it ?

higurashihougi wrote:One another advantage is that the radar will not be restricted to planar shape, we can bend its surface as much as we can, since we can adjust the phase shift and frequency of each element to change the sum emitted wave.

Radars on T-50 wing edges and hull sides is just the beginning step. In the future, who know somebody may coat much of the aircraft surface with radar elements...

That is possible with PESA as well.

It require to pre compute the setting for each phase shifter, instead just to use linear setting for each of them.

higurashihougi wrote:

– extended detection range;
– enhanced resolution in the surface mapping mode;

I haven't gotten it yet. The range and resolution should depends on radar power and antenna size, rather than AESA or PESA, don't they ?

In fact, I think, AESA requires more complicate and careful synchronization between each elements, and that is why F-22's AESA suffered from myopia, isn't it ?

The phase shifters behave as additional resistance, means each of them will decrease the power a bit.

The Raytheon quoting 3db transmission / 3db receiving loss due to the phase shifters in they advertisements .

Means that an AESA peak power vs PESA difference can be 10-30%, if the nominal output is the same.

This is one of the reason why the Russians using hybrid PESA, with directly connect receiver for each element.


In that case the full AESA radar the challenge is the cooling of each individual unit.

With the PESA only one or two tube need cooling, that is uniformal and easy .

However in the case of the AESA 1600 bubble gum sized transmitter / receiver needs individual cooling.

The biggest problem is the asymmetricity of the cooling.

The timing ,performance and amplification of each element, depend on he temperature of the given element.

Means at the edge of the radar each of them will be cooler - or warmer if the aircraft fly fast.


If there is a nanosecond shift between the radiation between then the radar can't work.

marcellogo wrote:

Pierre Sprey wrote:

Rmf wrote:

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.

The FC 31 is a copy of the carrier ready Mig 29 chassis. And like everything in China, it can't move without Russian engines.The FC 31 could still be axed. Its a tech demonstrator basically.

And as someone already said, Russia turned the tables in Syria, and put Russia back on the geopolitical game table,  leaning on the su 24.

Su-24, like the F-111 and the Tornado, when they are getting their due pace upgrades obviously , is still an hell of an attack/bomber plane, having specialized  features, like very low level handling and adjustable wings, that the multirole fighters that have taken their place can only dream about.

I totally agree. These gen of aircraft are criminally underrated.

by the way guys russian T/R modules made by ISTOC have a noise figure of 1.4 db , while according to raytheon ,they acheived 3 db , does that mean we have a proof that istoc modules are better in that area?

Isos wrote:

HM1199 wrote:as we are all discussing , the trendy subject is the mig 35 right ? well as the customs say the national interest just HAS to make an article to trash out any russian hardware , so  for your enjoyment you may wanna look at this xD : http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-mig-35-has-big-secret-time-nato-will-be-pleased-19246

-Another piece of trash article signed dave majumdar .

" My source told me", Americans and their secret sources ...

"Just for export" , they ordered 30 last week +140 more to come...

" Putin ", they talk more about Putin than Putin's propaganda ...

Funny Dave has never given any data on its articles, it's always " 'Muricaaa the best " I'm sure he has an acount on F-16.net

he has a point- it is a mig-29 with as solid capability as possible for lowest price possible ,no fancy stuff ,for export to poorer countries that want to replace old mig-29s /mig-21s at lower prices so to be affordable to them.... and to keep sokol plant busy ,state will buy some too, in the meantime in that presentation putin mentiones civilian IL-114 and that will be built in sokol plant after 2020 so factory will survive.

he has a point- it is a mig-29 with as solid capability as possible for lowest price possible

No he does not.

The MiG-35 is a MiG-29A like an F-16A is a F-16C Block 52.

Very little is the same.

The MiG-29A is a short range point defence interceptor with two BVR missiles and four short range AAMs. It could not even carry the extended range R-27E model Alamos... It carried two R-27R SARH AAMs and originally four R-60MKs and later four R-73s... and dumb bombs and dumb rockets and a 30mm cannon and that was all.

Most of the countries that could afford to buy MiG-29s were in eastern europe and would not likely buy any model MiG today.

Countries like Egypt and Iraq and Syria and Iran might buy some, but the market wont be huge... though the Russian AF buying some might help quite a bit.

Equally the Aerospace defence forces might buy a few as well just to defend their airfields.

Majority of the structure of MiG-35 is composite. So it is only same in shape of aircraft/design. But overall, not the same aircraft.

GarryB wrote:

he has a point- it is a mig-29 with as solid capability as possible for lowest price possible

No he does not.

The MiG-35 is a MiG-29A like an F-16A is a F-16C Block 52.

Very little is the same.

The MiG-29A is a short range point defence interceptor with two BVR missiles and four short range AAMs. It could not even carry the extended range R-27E model Alamos... It carried two R-27R SARH AAMs and originally four R-60MKs and later four R-73s... and dumb bombs and dumb rockets and a 30mm cannon and that was all.

Most of the countries that could afford to buy MiG-29s were in eastern europe and would not likely buy any model MiG today.

Countries like Egypt and Iraq and Syria and Iran might buy some, but the market wont be huge... though the Russian AF buying some might help quite a bit.

Equally the Aerospace defence forces might buy a few as well just to defend their airfields.

yes he does , you are really making a fool of yourself in this tread, read again and again untill it sinks --as solid capability as cheaply as possible, more fuel and some structural changes+ already multimode (multirole) slotted aray radar from mig-29k  are cheapest and easiest to implement , it doesnt have aesa , vectored thrust ,rd-33mkm, etc...

HM1199 wrote:by the way guys russian T/R modules made by ISTOC have a noise figure of 1.4 db , while according to raytheon ,they acheived 3 db , does that mean we have a proof that istoc modules are better in that area?

I think it simply means that the raytheon stopped any design activity on the PESA radars, and to be able to sell the AESA it still quoting the 20 years old PEAS parameters in the advertising materials.

yes he does , you are really making a fool of yourself in this tread, read again and again untill it sinks --as solid capability as cheaply as possible, more fuel and some structural changes+ already multimode (multirole) slotted aray radar from mig-29k are cheapest and easiest to implement , it doesnt have aesa , vectored thrust ,rd-33mkm, etc...

The idea was a cheap simple Mig-29 and a very good and more expensive Su-27. At the end the reality was that both Aircraft were expensive and the cost of last Mig series were at the price than Sukhois.

You suggestion of a cheap mig-35 is totaly wrong. The Mig-35 is meant for countries like Bielorussia were a Su-27 is too big for patroling in a small area. The philosophy of the 2 Aircrafts is different, and the Mig-35 is made for countries which want to protect their country and not a big one to Attack 2000km from their borders.
Iran is more likely to buy Su-30 and maybe Pak Fa as it's a pretty big country.