MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

http://mig35.tass.com/

I remember many years ago there was talk about a new engine for the MiG-33 as it was called then... it was called the RD45 and was supposed to be an RD33 like engine with 12 tons thrust.

I wonder if that is still in development or if it ever existed...

AMCXXL wrote:

Luq man wrote:Mig-35 production starts Januari 2018.
https://rg.ru/2017/12/26/reg-cfo/proizvodstvo-mig-35-nachnetsia-v-ianvare.html

Putin still dont have signed the SAP 2018-2027 , so still , there are not any contract for start the work
Probably after the elections

medo wrote:https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/102223/

MiG Corporation finished modernization of their production plant in Kalyazin in Tver Oblast for serial production of MiG-35 and Il-114. MiG will now be able to produce 36 MiG-35 jets per year. RuAF need around 400 MiG-35 jets and big investment in production modernization show, that RuAF will buy them. No need for production capabilities of 36 jets per year if RuAF will order only 30 jets.

Another of big nonsenses of journalist, that not undrestand how to work a production plant

IAPO can produce 36 Su-30 or more after 20 years of experience , in fact , already have produced more than 30 Su-30 other years. Only is question of have more customers
MAPO cannot go to the unemployment office and hire hundreds of experienced aeronautical workers to make 36 planes the first year, simply this notice is false.

About "Russia need 400 MiG-35" , probably in the wet dreams of the CEO of MiG

Russia alredy have replaced all the MiG-29 regiments by Su-30SM , and generals dont want MiGs

Russia has only 4 squadrons of MiG-29, only 1 of combat, other of display and two in training centers. Total less than 70 MiG-29
Also has one regiment of MiG-29SMT without known destination after replacement by Su-30SM

In the better case , if Russia replaces in long term all MiG-29 with MiG-35 (inlcluded the "Algerian") ,there are about 100 MiG-35 to buy, that cound be a reasonable objetive until 2027 or 2030 (about 8-10 airplanes per year)

You are confusing Mig-29 and Mig-35. Mig-35 is as good as Su-30SM, if not better in air to air with its AESA. It should also be cheaper and many countries would buy it instead of the bigger sukhoi brother which is well suited for big countries like Russia, China or India but for smaller countries Mig-35 is a much better choice.

Russia really needs a cheaper fighter other than the Sukhois because they have a big area to defend. If those general like you said don't want it then they are not good generals. Countries like Israel, Turkey or India have more modern fighters than Russia. I agree the range of Mig-35 is still short for Russia but having only the expensive Sukhois isn't the best choice possible.

Of course , you are much clever than the Russian Air Force generals and chiefs of Major Staff , that probably have have flown all figthers since MiG-17, and know all the classificated data that you unkonow

Who cares about classicated data ? Their sukhois have nothing magical, they can be destroyed and they don't have enough of them to correctly cover all the mainland. A cheaper fighter is needed, no matter what they say.

Those general are talking for their domestic public just like would US ones do. They wouldn't say they have a bad army. But the fact are there, they don't have enough of fighters.

Isos wrote:Countries like Israel, Turkey or India have more modern fighters than Russia.

What!? That is not true, at all.

But what is going on with the AESA radar, like is it even ready? That TASS marketing page only lists the specifications of the old radar, which has a 160km detection range LMAO, is that supposed to impressive?

Considering how things are going, the AESA radar won't be ready anytime soon either...

Kimppis wrote:

Isos wrote:Countries like Israel, Turkey or India have more modern fighters than Russia.

What!? That is not true, at all.

But what is going on with the AESA radar, like is it even ready? That TASS marketing page only lists the specifications of the old radar, which has a 160km detection range LMAO, is that supposed to impressive?

Considering how things are going, the AESA radar won't be ready anytime soon either...

MiG-35 will then see about double it's engagement capability then if it's 160km range. Not bad for a small jet. Issue is, no one anywhere knows the Zhuk-A and where it stands right now. As I have proven, The T/R modules are made and used, with new GaN modules also in current production status. All we knew in the past was they had real difficulty cooling the modules on a small aircraft like MiG-29's so it really hindered performance to point that an mechanical radar was better suited.

Now days, radar is starting to take a back seat btw, something I noticed. F-35 started the trend of sniffing radar signals to detect enemy aircrafts. Russia is doing same with their jets, so is nearly everyone else.

What I find interesting is that radar engagement capabilities are in close performance to Russias OLS systems.

AMCXXL wrote:

Kimppis wrote:

Isos wrote:Countries like Israel, Turkey or India have more modern fighters than Russia.

What!? That is not true, at all.

But what is going on with the AESA radar, like is it even ready? That TASS marketing page only lists the specifications of the old radar, which has a 160km detection range LMAO, is that supposed to impressive?

Considering how things are going, the AESA radar won't be ready anytime soon either...

Israeli F-16 downed for a old soviet S-150 or S-200 is better than Su-35S or Su-30SM ???  

Since when sukhoi are immune to air defence systems ?

MiG-35 will then see about double it's engagement capability then if it's 160km range. Not bad for a small jet. Issue is, no one anywhere knows the Zhuk-A and where it stands right now. As I have proven, The T/R modules are made and used, with new GaN modules also in current production status. All we knew in the past was they had real difficulty cooling the modules on a small aircraft like MiG-29's so it really hindered performance to point that an mechanical radar was better suited.

Now days, radar is starting to take a back seat btw, something I noticed. F-35 started the trend of sniffing radar signals to detect enemy aircrafts. Russia is doing same with their jets, so is nearly everyone else.

What I find interesting is that radar engagement capabilities are in close performance to Russias OLS systems.

Last aesa radar for mig-35 have 250 km range. They are all ready but they have difficulties to produce them as no one ordered them yet.

Sniffing an aesa is not easy. OLS is not meant to replace radar. 250 km will allow ot to use also r-37 against awacs.

R-37 isn't for MiG-35 first off. Second, they been producing the modules a long time but not for aircraft. Third off, it is very easy to pick up radar signals since it's radiation. It's rather basic. Even with "LPI" it is only using a fraction of power to scan in a direction. Average t/r module is about 5 to 10W of power. You are not going to get much of a scan/detection with even 30 T/R modules pointing in one direction. And even as soon as that radiation is sent, sensors can pick it up. How accurate? Not entirely. But enough to know, because once again, it's a low amount of power being sent out. Unless radiation can definitely the laws of physics by being encrypted through it's particles, it can be picked up (lol). So please, spare me the panphlet talk.

OLS on the other hand uses a laser and optics. While it can be easily picked up by enemy sensors, it only works of the laser is on your directly. But with IIR, it becomes hard as it's not letting off any particular signal/radiation. Yes, it's an expensive use, but it works wonders when you yourself is wanting to engage an enemy without being spotted yourself or letting the enemy know you locked him.

GaN I thought was mostly due to efficiency so they we're able to produce more power output without the need of a same cooling system as GaAS does.

Regardless, they got their 10W GaN modules made by Rostec.

French spectra allow to use missile without activating the rafale's radar, just by processing the enemy signal. But with AESA you will know the direction where it comes from but not a precise position. I'm not an expert of radars but I always thought that this is the main advantage of aesa.

I also expressed the idea of using the Mig-25 radar which produce something like 400k kW power but with modern technologies. Irbis-e is 20 kWt if I'm not wrong. Instead of being stealth you go full power to be sure to see everything. Could even be used to point the beam at missiles and burn them.

Radar is radar is radar. It all does the same thing. Sends out a signal, and the reflection of that signal back and that determine if you got a Target or not. The AESA doesn't move and the fact it has different transievers means it can designate various transievers to scan in different directions at same time, while PESA has either 1 (or two in Irbis E case) that moves with the radar while scanning. In the end, both are sending off signals that can be picked up. Difference is, PESA is sending one large signal out in it's respective direction, while AESA is sending small signals towards multiple directions. Doesn't mean that it's 10KW of power going into separate spaces. It's 10KW divided by the number of modules scanning. Doesn't have magic to it. It will be affected by it severely regarding it's low output. In that direction.

Pros and cons on both sides. Doesn't mean it can't easily be picked up. Sensors just received that radiation and state that radio activity coming from so and so area.

As for the French missile, they may have ability to launch missile whole it is tracked by french OLS system or it's an active radar missile meaning it will track on it's own. Or there is something else I'm not aware of.

Isos wrote:French spectra allow to use missile without activating the rafale's radar, just by processing the enemy signal. But with AESA you will know the direction where it comes from but not a precise position. I'm not an expert of radars but I always thought that this is the main advantage of aesa.

I also expressed the idea of using the Mig-25 radar which produce something like 400k kW power but with modern technologies. Irbis-e is 20 kWt if I'm not wrong. Instead of being stealth you go full power to be sure to see everything. Could even be used to point the beam at missiles and burn them.

The PESA radar using one big signal generator ( travelling wave tube example) and dividing it between a lot of phase shifter that steering the beam to different directions.
The reflected signal going back through the shifters, and processed with a central processor.

The AESA has a lot of small transmitter/received in the phased array radar, each of them working synchronous mode , and doing the transmission /receive function at the same time.

There are radars that works in mixed mode ( like irbis-e), having one central signal generator, but independent receiver amplification elements for each antenna in the phased array.


It means that in silent mode it has the same performance like any AESA radar.

And the claim about the AESA radar multiple beam forming capability is just PR, in real life you want to send out as strong signal as you can in the narrowest beam, to look as far as possible.

French spectra allow to use missile without activating the rafale's radar, just by processing the enemy signal. But with AESA you will know the direction where it comes from but not a precise position. I'm not an expert of radars but I always thought that this is the main advantage of aesa.

Actually the angular accuracy of IRSTs is better than radar and is totally passive.

The MIG-29 was able to launch IR guided missiles at targets without using radar in the 1980s... it is not that big of a deal.

GarryB wrote:

French spectra allow to use missile without activating the rafale's radar, just by processing the enemy signal. But with AESA you will know the direction where it comes from but not a precise position. I'm not an expert of radars but I always thought that this is the main advantage of aesa.

Actually the angular accuracy of IRSTs is better than radar and is totally passive.

The MIG-29 was able to launch IR guided missiles at targets without using radar in the 1980s... it is not that big of a deal.

What I understood is that spectra works as a passive radar. In terms of range you can't do better. And it is as passive as IRST. And it is precise enough to allow you to lunch missiles but I don't know which missile. Maybe meteor so the target is dead because it will know only at last sec that it targeted when the missile goes active.

IRST is good but I think r-27T don't have lock on after lunch and r-27r needs the radar of lunch fighter to work. Maybe r-77 could use the data from IRST.

Is it an impression or the ailerons on the Mig-35 are far bigger than on the mig-29 ? Is it because it is bigger and needs that to be as manoeuvrable as Mig-29 ?

Look at 3:00.

Isos wrote:Is it an impression or the ailerons on the Mig-35 are far bigger than on the mig-29 ? Is it because it is bigger and needs that to be as manoeuvrable as Mig-29 ?

Look at 3:00.

You are right. There are many differences in the frame and aerodynamics between older MiG-29 (9.12, 9.13, SMT which in reality are old incomplete frames from Soviet times) and newer MiG-29K/M2/35:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SdyTuMVdky4/WIyh7hCYPwI/AAAAAAAATHc/mb-jdmuBHm4bazP6gPcyUToRQaFsvdojgCLcB/s1600/mig-29%2Bvs%2Bmig-35%2Bcompar%2Bdif.jpg

What I understood is that spectra works as a passive radar. In terms of range you can't do better.

Actually in theory with the proper computing power behind it a MiG-29 from the 1980s could be used mostly passively and almost impossible to detect in that way too.

Very simply the fire control system of the MiG-29 included a Helmet mounted sight, an IRST system and a radar.

An aircraft like an F-16 of the time just had the radar so to find targets in that aircraft it had to scan the sky looking for a return... once it got a return it could then send a ranging pulse and get range and direction and speed etc.

In the MIG-29 the IRST for BVR targets or Helmet mounted sight for WVR targets can be used to locate the target... for an IR guided missile that is enough because if the IR missile can get a lock then it is in range because the R-73 has a flight range of 40km and the R-27T has a range of about 65km and the R-27ET has a range of about 80km, so if it is in locking range it is within launch range too...

With the IRST giving the radar precise angular details there is no need for scanning... just a short ranging pulse that could get lost in the noise of the combat zone...

And it is as passive as IRST. And it is precise enough to allow you to lunch missiles but I don't know which missile. Maybe meteor so the target is dead because it will know only at last sec that it targeted when the missile goes active.

Any modern Russian fighter will detect the missiles exhaust plume at quite a distance anyway... plus the Su-35 and Su-57 can scan the Eurofighter in L band... a frequency the Eurofighters radars don't operate in so they will be none the wiser...

IRST is good but I think r-27T don't have lock on after lunch and r-27r needs the radar of lunch fighter to work. Maybe r-77 could use the data from IRST.

Please... there are more than 2 dozen variations of the Alamo missile and it is being updated all the time... but why do you think lock on after launch is so important?

Passive is passive, so if no one is using radar then the Russian fighters can be directed by ground radar/installations to the general location of enemy fighters and use their IRSTs to detect western fighters at 60km or more depending upon the model... with the 110km range of the R-77 that should be plenty to launch the missile and have a reasonable chance of a kill without giving away its own position by using radar...

Is it an impression or the ailerons on the Mig-35 are far bigger than on the mig-29 ? Is it because it is bigger and needs that to be as manoeuvrable as Mig-29 ?

The MiG-35 is not that much bigger than the MiG-29.

Larger control surfaces just offer more rapid control manouvers in conventional flight. In superstall flight they make no difference at all.

Edit... looking again... the ailerons are from the MiG-29KR and are for low speed flight to land on carrier decks.

The horizontal tail surfaces are for most manouver control in dogfights... ailerons not so much, so there would be no manouver performance difference... only reduced takeoff and landing speeds.. (ie reduced stall speed).

Please... there are more than 2 dozen variations of the Alamo missile and it is being updated all the time... but why do you think lock on after launch is so important?

Passive is passive, so if no one is using radar then the Russian fighters can be directed by ground radar/installations to the general location of enemy fighters and use their IRSTs to detect western fighters at 60km or more depending upon the model... with the 110km range of the R-77 that should be plenty to launch the missile and have a reasonable chance of a kill without giving away its own position by using radar...

Lock on after lunch would allow longer range engagement for R-27ET. Against a powerfull enemy with awacs and jaming plaines you can lunch a salvo of ER and ET at max range and be sure one of them will hit. Specially if your radar paint the target it will lunch only chaffs and not flares because he will think it's only a radar missile so your R-27ET has more chances to hit.

If the enemy has awacs or has its radar turned on it will probably see a Sukhoi at long range. Passive isn't only good for silent engagement like you describ it by going radar tunred off. R-27ET is a very capable missiles and should be used with all it potentiel. It is marketed as a 110km missile while in fact it is more for dogfight with longer legs than a r-73.

Edit... looking again... the ailerons are from the MiG-29KR and are for low speed flight to land on carrier decks.

The horizontal tail surfaces are for most manouver control in dogfights... ailerons not so much, so there would be no manouver performance difference... only reduced takeoff and landing speeds.. (ie reduced stall speed).

It's usefull for Mig-29KR but for the mig-35 does it change something to have smaller or bigger ailerons than a mig-29 ? It will operate Airport not from a carrier.

I didn't know they have used the wings of Mig-29K for Mig-35.

Lock on after lunch would allow longer range engagement for R-27ET.

It is a chase down missile rarely used against head on targets.

Against a powerfull enemy with awacs and jaming plaines you can lunch a salvo of ER and ET at max range and be sure one of them will hit.

At max range against a powerful enemy you can be sure neither will hit.

Specially if your radar paint the target it will lunch only chaffs and not flares because he will think it's only a radar missile so your R-27ET has more chances to hit.

A powerful enemy with modern aircraft will detect the IR signature of both missiles coming...

It is marketed as a 110km missile while in fact it is more for dogfight with longer legs than a r-73.

110km in a high altitude high speed launch against a closing target.

It is 80km for a fighter sized target high altitude closing.

If the enemy has awacs or has its radar turned on it will probably see a Sukhoi at long range. Passive isn't only good for silent engagement like you describ it by going radar tunred off. R-27ET is a very capable missiles and should be used with all it potentiel.

If the target is an AWACS aircraft then the weapon of choice should be the R-27EP passive homing ARM model.

It's usefull for Mig-29KR but for the mig-35 does it change something to have smaller or bigger ailerons than a mig-29 ? It will operate Airport not from a carrier.

Lower takeoff and landing speeds is not a bad thing, and lower stall speed is good too, though the TVC means there is no actual stall speed...

I didn't know they have used the wings of Mig-29K for Mig-35.

Structurally I believe the main difference between the two is the non folding wing on the 35 and the lack of a tail hook. Of course the electronics and systems are totally different and the 35 has various EO systems around the place too.