MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

AMCXXL wrote:
Short take-off and vertical landing = STOVL

"Now work is under way to create conceptual models and prototypes. Of course, this is the future of all aircraft carriers. A new fleet of aircraft is needed, for this different technologies are used that allow shortened take-off and landing, or simply vertical take-off. Conceptually, the work has already been carried out in the Ministry of Defense since last year, "Borisov said.


https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201808211243-1c61.htm


vertical and/or short take-off and landing (V/STOL)


Technically STOVL or VSTOL are no different.

This type of airplanes are for baby carriers or LHD´s , not for carriers of +300 m length and +70.000 tones
Or pherhaps Russia can get again LHD´s that does not need

hmm so you claim to know realities better then Russian MoD ? What's more they siad something like 40-50 ktons

BTW Royal Navy for  QE2 65ktons uses F-35B

V/STOL is a nonsense invented for can classify the terribly awful V-22
Harrier was STOVL since more 40 years, simply because cannot operate full load of fuel and weapons and need a short runway , much better with sky jump
Of course a airplane that can land vertically, can take off vertically, with little fuel and less armament if the pilot does not want to risk his life

Russia does not need second quality carriers as Italy , Spain or France, simply because a Sukhoi cannot operate in this tyoe of ships.
Even Kuznestov is small for S-33. Never has charged more of 10, and probably as much can operate resasonably well with 10-12 Su-33 and 10-12 MiG-29K.

The airplanes STVOL like 141 was from the era of the baby carriers and SCS (Sea control ships) in the late cold war , mainly for ASW
By this time USSR has four Kiev Class (Aviation Curisers, not true carriers) that operates a few of the bizarre Yak-38 and some antisubmarine helicopters , the 141 was for this type of ships not for attack carriers USA style.

Russian industry can develop a lot of weapons, but this does not mean that Russian Navy is going to buy it , can be for export or as much if Russia want again ships type LHD

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

No the dont, MiG-35 was so slow because there were problems with financing/building factory and so on.
In this case all components and technologies are there. Tested either on PAK-FA / Su-35 or MiG-35. This speeds work for couple of years to me.

The only "problem" with the MiG-35 is the RuAF was not interested and did not put any ruble last decade
In other case they had fund the project and the airplane would have been bought since 2012 or 2013 instead Su-30SM

By luck for RuAF , the criterion of its High Staff was imposed over the pressures of the industry

The only airplanes sold successfully for MiG in more a decade , after the scandal of corruption of the "Algerian" MiG-29SMT, that in the end the RuAF has remained almost completely, against its will , was carrier based airplanes:

The Indian MiG-29K (9-31) and the russian MiG-29KR (9-41)

The Egypt 9-61 is a late development of  on the Carrier based MiG´s , the next after Russia gets MiG-35 for display squadron, will be the MiG-35K

AMCXXL wrote: Russia does not need second quality carriers as Italy , Spain or France, simply because a Sukhoi cannot operate in this tyoe of ships.
Even Kuznestov is small for S-33. Never has charged more of 10, and probably as much can operate resasonably well with 10-12 Su-33 and 10-12 MiG-29K.

that's why VSTOL was proposed, can use potential of smaller ships.

The Egypt 9-61 is a late development of  on the Carrier based MiG´s , the next after Russia gets MiG-35 for display squadron, will be the MiG-35K

you can believe in whatever you want to but this is not affecting reality. It was decided by MoD and approved by Supreme Commander that VSTOL is going to be built.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

AMCXXL wrote:  Russia does not need second quality carriers as Italy , Spain or France, simply because a Sukhoi cannot operate in this tyoe of ships.
Even Kuznestov is small for S-33. Never has charged more of 10, and probably as much can operate resasonably well with 10-12 Su-33 and 10-12 MiG-29K.

that's why VSTOL was proposed, can use potential of smaller ships.

The Egypt 9-61 is a late development of  on the Carrier based MiG´s , the next after Russia gets MiG-35 for display squadron, will be the MiG-35K

you can believe in whatever you want to but this is not affecting reality.  It was decided by MoD and approved by Supreme Commander that VSTOL is going to be built.

Then they will build LHD´s like the US Marines
It is too soon for all of this , in teen years we will see.
The Su-33 have problems with the poor design of Kuznetsov and its own not specific design for carriers
A well designed Carrier of 320m lenght can solve this and allow to operate a wing of 18 carrier based designed Flankers and 18 MiG-35K

Ι had the impression that MiG-29K is actually a navalised MiG-35

George1 wrote:Ι had the impression that MiG-29K is actually a navalised MiG-35

It lacks tge aesa radar, the EW suite that was supposed to be build by italian firm, and probably it lacks the weapons and pods designed for the mig-35 like for exemple kh-38 based cruise missile and free bomb.

George1 wrote:Ι had the impression that MiG-29K is actually a navalised MiG-35

It is rather the opposite, it is the MiG-35 that comes from the MiG-29K
All the latest developments of the MiG-29 come from the MiG-29M (MiG-33) two seats Nº154
This prototype was first used for the MiG-29M2 MRCA and from there came the MiG-29K 9.31 from India
Later on he left in Russian MiG-29KR 9-41
And the later MiG-29 of Egypt 9-61 is the last step of those MiG-29.
In addition, the prototype of MiG-29M Nº154 was later used as "Demonstrator of technologies" and was called "MiG-35D" that was used as a platform to publicize the new upgrades expected for MiG-35 before it even began.

Later the four prototypes of the MiG-35 (741,747,702,712) were created with some improvements in the size of the wings and the rear wings,from these late MiG-29

All these airplanes have common that share the hull of a two-seater airplane as it was Nº154, it is also the same for the single-seater, only that the content of the second cabin has been removed to give more space to systems and to fuel

Interesting since we talk about MiG-29 variants

As reported, Russia and Algeria are negotiating the supply of MiG-29M/M2 fighters

As Ivan Safronov writes in the article "The fighter went to the second Algerian circle", published in today's issue of the newspaper Kommersant, Algeria - one of the largest buyers of Russian aviation equipment - showed interest in the purchase of 14 MiG-29M/M2 fighters that can replace in the Algerian Air Force, second-hand Soviet MiG-29S from Belarus and Ukraine. The MiG Corporation will not only receive several hundred million dollars in profits, but will also ensure the loading of its production facilities for several years to come. Russia's last attempt to enter the Algerian market with the MiG-29SMT was made in 2006, but the customer, having received the first 15 cars, returned the fighters to the manufacturer due to the presence of substandard parts in them.

The Algerian order for the MiG-29M/M2, coupled with the ongoing supplies of 46 such aircraft to Egypt, will allow RAC MiG to load its capacities for several years ahead, says a source from Kommersant in the aviation industry: "Against the backdrop of the plans of the Russian military to purchase the MiG-35 (in 2018-2023 in the army should be delivered 6 machines. - "Kommersant") this order will be a good help for the corporation. "

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3321309.html

If I was buying new fighters today I would be buying MiG-29M2s... they are ready for production right now and with modern missiles they are perfectly capable aircraft.

They of course can be upgraded with all the things being fitted to the MiG-35, which make it pretty much state of the art for 4th gen fighters, but most of those upgrades are pretty new and largely untested and also not cheap, but the point is that over time they will be improved and the price will come down as the technology matures.

Previously it was a bit of a risk with everyone buying Flankers, but now that the Russians have committed to buying them you know you wont get stuck with a lemon.

The idea that a flanker equivalent is better because it is bigger and longer ranged both counts for it and against it.

Needless to say the argument was that a flanker has twice the range and twice the capacity for weapons so one flanker can do the job of two fulcrums.

The obvious problem there is of course that two fulcrums can be in different places... or indeed together but covering each other.

They all have pretty much the same speed, so it is a bit like a courier getting a really big van to carry more and be able to cover twice the area of two guys with smaller vans.

You certainly do save money by paying one driver covering twice the area with twice the load, but the problem is that you don't get twice the coverage... if you are Australia or Russia with great wide open spaces then the Flanker makes sense, but for a smaller country where denser coverage is actually better... like European Russia, the smaller fighter in larger numbers makes rather more sense.

Missile range is about altitude and speed of launch, so the Flanker has no real advantage there, while detection range will have just as much to do with VKO interconnectivity with air and ground radar and other sensors... you would in fact be better off buying 100 MiG-29M2s plus four to six carrier based medium sized AWACS for situational awareness... those AWACS planes would pay for themselves in time with their performance.

According to some you would be better off with 50 flankers because they have better radar range...

I suspect the best option is a mix of both types... as chosen by the Russian AF.

@GarryB:
In theory this is true, would think it would apply to MiG-35s as well, depending on avionics installed. Apparently they are selling them abroad for ca. 50 million, this is really cheap. The new plane has much better range and should have most of features needed today, included great dynamics and good weapons.

But after so many claimed problems with MiG-29 in the past (Algeria and Indian Ks come to mind), Russia needs to step in and buy seriously to ease customer's concerns that they may be going to get a dead chicken, since their number of units may not justify for MiG to do a serious effort in terms of reliability and service. 6 units for aerobatic team do not solve these concerns IMHO...

Well lets be fair... there was likely nothing wrong with the MiG-29SMTs that Algeria got... I mean they seem to be OK in the Russian Air Force... the only problem was that Sukhoi offered Flankers for the same price... but how do you get out of the contract you already signed... hmm.. maybe complain about the quality or performance of the product you bought.

Anyone who has ever worked in retail knows customers who bought an expensive item will come back the next day and see it is now 30% off so they want to return the item and buy it again for 30% less... when it is a toaster and you save 15 dollars it is annoying, but when it is a fighter plane worth millions it becomes a significant amount... if you made the decision to buy it is your fault... lots of pressure.

MiG got a terrible reputation during the 1990s, but really it was not their fault... tight fisted cheap ass countries bought second hand MiGs from existing operators... well those operators want to sell off extra airframes, but they don't want to sell their spare parts reserve, so these countries that buy cheap second hand MiGs expect cheap parts from MiG and the real world doesn't work like that...

You didn't buy the product from the maker and then expect cheap spares and support... of course you are dreaming... in any industry.

If those customers had bought new aircraft they could have gotten a deal on support and spare parts, but they tried to save some money and it cost them big time.

A bit like eastern european countries getting the Ukraine to service their soviet stuff instead of Russia... they are surprised they are getting ripped off with substandard or counterfeit parts.. or indeed the money disappears through corruption... or even better they take parts from other jobs and put these second hand parts in your planes and charge you for new parts...

I suspect these unhappy customers are not very honest customers...

Cannot judge the fairness of the claims, but they exist and IMHO are probably harming MiG. You can bet if one cannot find out whether MiG-35 has an AESA radar available or not, the chances of the product being thoroughly tested, main long-term reliability issues addressed and service concept developed are very thin, and no one wants to be MiG's guinea pig. There was a big PR effort at Army 2018 to present MiG-35 together with Su-57 as the future of Russian fighter fleet, now its time for the AF to prove to those claims right or wrong.

Bit of a puff piece from India but an interesting comment on why reliability low in INAS service.

Mig-29K has often been touted to possess poor reliability due to less availability rates. This has been primarily due to the fact that any Carrier has a limit to the amount of spares it carries during peacetime and hence the availability rates of Mig-29K are purposely lower than 50% at any given time which can be increased to maximum levels during threatening times as we saw during Exercise Gagan Shakti where IAF dramatically increased its availability to near perfection.

https://defenceupdate.in/how-capable-is-the-indian-navys-mig-29k-during-wartime/

Cannot judge the fairness of the claims, but they exist and IMHO are probably harming MiG.

The situation repeated several times... Iran is an example... some MiG-29s arrived from Iraq and they expected to get cheap parts from Russia... for planes they did not buy from MiG...

There are certainly multiple sides to every story, but I specifically remember the Algerian case... the Algerians claimed the MiGs they received were not brand new, that they were stock that was sitting in factories. They hadn't been flown but were not brand new produced for the contract.

So clearly the problem was interpretation of the meaning of new aircraft.

An I admit you could argue either way, but who is right?

When you buy a set of curtains does it not count as new if it has sat in a warehouse or the shop shelf for 8 months before you bought it?

And if it sat in a warehouse or store shelf for 2 years and you got it at a reduced price would you be happy to check the date of manufacture and start the 2 year guarantee from that date? I am sure you would not... can't have it both ways...

I mean I can understand if it was an ex Russian Airforce aircraft or it had actually been a flying example they were using and presenting as new, but these airframes had never flown before... they were new.

But as I said... Sukhoi offered the Flankers for the same price as the MiG-29SMTs... the Fulcrums were going to be rejected no matter what.

And that is fine... I don't blame the Algerians, but I don't think you can pretend it was MiGs fault or that they were to blame or that they did anything wrong...

The fact that the Russian AF is using them suggests they are not totally useless deathtraps the western media want to portray them as being... it is not about communism... it is worse... it is about commerce.

Regarding that MiG article... the AH-64 has a poor reputation for high maintainence and problems with availability... During Desert Storm its availability was excellent... because they increased the hours and budget and spares support train for the aircraft by about 5 times... no other country on the planet could have afforded that sort of support, but they did it and got the performance they wanted.

@GarryB:
What I mean is that RuAF needs to get serious weight behind the MiG-35 in order to reassure potential buyers that they are getting a finished and likeable product, that means, make serious orders beyond the 6 units for Kubinka and integrate them rationally in their structure, for instance in mixed regiments with heavy Sukhois. If possible, they should be ordered with AESA radars to dispel doubts about it for once. This may not be the ultimate wish of AF but preserving MiG and getting international orders should compensate. If they don't do this and don't create another big project for MiG soon, better to partner or integrate them with Sukhoi (which would in turn affect Phazotron and Klimov for instance). There was some talk abut this recently, honestly don't know what to think since MiG seems on a relative standstill for many years now without government showing to care too much apart from the usual good words.

LMFS wrote:@GarryB:
What I mean is that RuAF needs to get serious weight behind the MiG-35 in order to reassure potential buyers that they are getting a finished and likeable product, that means, make serious orders beyond the 6 units for Kubinka and integrate them rationally in their structure, for instance in mixed regiments with heavy Sukhois. If possible, they should be ordered with AESA radars to dispel doubts about it for once. This may not be the ultimate wish of AF but preserving MiG and getting international orders should compensate. If they don't do this and don't create another big project for MiG soon, better to partner or integrate them with Sukhoi (which would in turn affect Phazotron and Klimov for instance). There was some talk abut this recently, honestly don't know what to think since MiG seems on a relative standstill for many years now without government showing to care too much apart from the usual good words.

Impossible. Russian airforce don't want mig anymore as sukhoi have better technology, more investement, and they have a bigger plateform.

Mig can only hope to sell it on export market. Russia won't buy more than a handfull of them in case they need light cheap plateform for low intensity conflicts like protecting donbass against outdated ukrainian airforce. But sukhoi are still better for that.

Why should Russia upkeep Mikoyan? If they cannot provide an adequate product, then why should Russia support them?

Maybe it is better to reorientate Mikoyan to concentrate assets/knowledge in MiG-41 or a Jump jet (since they can work with Yakovlev in that) instead of creating a jet that just doesn't make sense anymore. Even with "AESA" radar, the Su-30SM BARS radar or the Su-35 IRBIS-E radar is still far superior in raw performance. What would I rather have? A jet that can produce very high amount of power, see all the necessary targets, and have high sensitivity sensors for a portion of the price, or a Jet with newer technology but that isn't really all that much in terms of overall performance and the benefits are questionable at best, while costing more?

Simple answer I would think. This is why Sukhois are popular, even outside of Russia. Algeria didn't even want their MiG-29SMT's either and wanted more Su-30's.

@Isos, miketheterrible:

> In RuAF MiG-29/35 can operate supported by the heavier Sukhois increasing their firepower, and in the air defence role for which it was designed the bigger range of the later is not needed. So IMHO it could be perfectly useful in service.
> MiG developed the aircraft the state wanted, they are not guilty that AF priorities have changed.
> Of course the Russian state should be interested in keeping MiG, a state owned company and world-wide known aircraft manufacturer alive. They are doing all PR efforts possible ("Su-57 and MiG-35 are the future of Russian combat aviation"), I only say they should complement this with orders if they want to see more results in the export market. If not, specialise them in other type of aircraft that does not compete with Sukhoi and give them a project soon (MiG-41, STOVL project). But not doing anything substantive is not going to help.

This not soviet union with thousands of jets. For air defence they wil use sukhois too as they can affoard to buy many of both. They have like less than 500 fighter jets of sukhoi 27 and mig 29 family in service. This is only a fraction of any jet they used to buy.

Now they have to chose and they will keep the money for su-57 and su-30/35 that they already ordered.

Mig isn't designed for the russian needs. They won't buy it because it is good in some area while sukhoi are just as good in those area and have many advantages over mig like weapons load, range, pilot trained on sukhoi ...

Once again, I reiterate that MiG-35, as impressive as it is, still doesn't match a Su-30SM, let alone Su-35. All while it costs more ($30M per aircraft in theory). Of course Russia will go for more capable Su-30 and Su-35, which would reduce maintence costs as well overall. Plus they themselves have upgrade options since both could fit something like N036 radar used in Su-57.

What I mean is that RuAF needs to get serious weight behind the MiG-35 in order to reassure potential buyers that they are getting a finished and likeable product, that means, make serious orders beyond the 6 units for Kubinka and integrate them rationally in their structure, for instance in mixed regiments with heavy Sukhois.

MiG sales are nothing to do with the RuAF... why would they care about that?

If possible, they should be ordered with AESA radars to dispel doubts about it for once.

MiG don't make radars or engines for that matter... and I would think putting AESA radars into service before they were ready would have the opposite effect you seem to be after.

Rushing them into production means they will be more expensive and less capable that if they were properly developed before entering service.

There was some talk abut this recently, honestly don't know what to think since MiG seems on a relative standstill for many years now without government showing to care too much apart from the usual good words.

The biggest problem for MiG is that the Russian AF didn't really need multirole aircraft. With all the extra features of the MiG-29SMT including air to ground radar and weapons... they are not using them like MiG-27Ks and MiG-23MLs... they are pretty much just using them as MiG-23s...

Impossible. Russian airforce don't want mig anymore as sukhoi have better technology, more investement, and they have a bigger plateform.

They why have they not withdrawn all MiG-29s from service and just keep Flankers in service?

They might look the same but they are like the T-80 and T-90... externally similar but the components are totally different... though they do have the same gun... they don't have the same number of rounds either.

The Flanker is a good aircraft, but the MiG has been multirole a lot longer than the Flanker family, but then the RuAF has been slow to recognise the value of multirole aircraft.

In western europe with lots of airfields that are much closer together there is no need for heavy Flanker fighters... larger numbers of smaller aircraft offer better coverage...

Mig can only hope to sell it on export market. Russia won't buy more than a handfull of them in case they need light cheap plateform for low intensity conflicts like protecting donbass against outdated ukrainian airforce. But sukhoi are still better for that.

Actually the opposite is true... the US found in training against India that smaller lighter fighters are harder to fight... Flankers are great for big open spaces like Siberia, but in smaller areas it makes sense to have more smaller fighters...

Simple answer I would think. This is why Sukhois are popular, even outside of Russia. Algeria didn't even want their MiG-29SMT's either and wanted more Su-30's.

Larger aircraft are simply more expensive to operate... they burn more fuel to fly around. Algeria wanted Flankers over MiGs because Sukhoi undercut the price of the MiG... they could afford to lose on the purchase price to make a sale and get a support contract... if you added operational costs the Su-30 would be rather more expensive than a MiG-29SMT... one of the SMTs features was its operational costs were 40% less than a standard MiG-29.

> In RuAF MiG-29/35 can operate supported by the heavier Sukhois increasing their firepower, and in the air defence role for which it was designed the bigger range of the later is not needed. So IMHO it could be perfectly useful in service.

In Russian service 90% of the time in western europe Su-27s operate with its main fuel tanks empty... which means 90% of the time a MiG-29 could do the same job and those 10% of the time when it needs more range it can carry external fuel tanks and use inflight refuelling.

> MiG developed the aircraft the state wanted, they are not guilty that AF priorities have changed.

Nothing has changed... they still operate MiG-29s.

Mig isn't designed for the russian needs. They won't buy it because it is good in some area while sukhoi are just as good in those area and have many advantages over mig like weapons load, range, pilot trained on sukhoi ...

In terms of weapons only with no air to ground weapons and only air to air weapons and no external fuel tanks the average flanker would carry about 2.8 tons of weapons... any model MiG can match that... and with inflight refuelling range is not important anyway.

More importantly A-100s and ground based radar will supply much of its information so it wont use its own radar that much anyway...

Once again, I reiterate that MiG-35, as impressive as it is, still doesn't match a Su-30SM, let alone Su-35. All while it costs more ($30M per aircraft in theory). Of course Russia will go for more capable Su-30 and Su-35, which would reduce maintence costs as well overall. Plus they themselves have upgrade options since both could fit something like N036 radar used in Su-57.

What DAS system does Su-30 have?

I am impressed with all these people talking down the MiG-35... for decades Sukhoi has done very little to upgrade their aircraft... admittedly because the Russian AF didn't really want anything better, but MiG have been working hard improving all aspects of its fighter.

Babak Taghvaee
Babak Taghvaee
@BabakTaghvaee
·
13h
The ten MiG-29SMTs & one MiG-29UB of 1st Aviation Squadron of 6963th AvB will be sent to 3624th AvB
#Erebuni in #Armenia to take place of the old #Russia
|n Air Force's MiG-29S/UBs in service there. They will protect #Armenia from danger of #Azerbaijan & #Turkey
.

The biggest problem for MiG is that the Russian AF didn't really need multirole aircraft. With all the extra features of the MiG-29SMT including air to ground radar and weapons... they are not using them like MiG-27Ks and MiG-23MLs... they are pretty much just using them as MiG-23s...

Actually the trend of the Russian AF actually using new high tech guided munitions now and with all their new aircraft actually being multirole, the potential for MiG-29SMT and the MiG-29M2 and MiG-35 is greatly increased.

I mean before you had frontal aviation MiG-23s flying over the battlefield looking for enemy aircraft, while MiG-27s attacked important targets like Bridges or HQs or SAMs or radars... so pretty much two very different focuses with different aircraft and different weapons.

With a MiG-29SMT or later MiG you could carry 6 AAMs, but also have two other weapons for other roles... ie while on patrol looking for enemy strike aircraft or bombers or enemy fighters, you might be painted by enemy radar, so a couple of ARMs could be used to deal with the threat... and the mission could continue.

Requires good mission planning, and training for different situations... if NATO was going to send a strike package to attack a bridge or HQ or whatever, having them fly over a friendly SAM on the way that could scare away enemy fighters by tracking them could be part of their plan for instance...

More of the other way Garry. If it is more like Su-30 and Su-35, then their purposes overlaps and since Su-30 and Su-35 are far better in every perameter than MiG-35, while the MiG-35 being more expensive, there is less chance of it being g acquired. And so far, that is exactly what's happening.

miketheterrible wrote:More of the other way Garry. If it is more like Su-30 and Su-35, then their purposes overlaps and since Su-30 and Su-35 are far better in every perameter than MiG-35, while the MiG-35 being more expensive, there is less chance of it being g acquired. And so far, that is exactly what's happening.

Price is still unknown. The 40 million dollars that is said to be its price is for export. Export version of su-30/35 are over 60 million.

From last issue of The New Defence Order Strategy:

http://en.dfnc.ru/aviazcia/mig-fighter-aircraft-come-out-of-the-shadow/

Regarding MiG-35:

In 2016, its basic design was completed, and at the end of 2017 the aircraft equipped with the pre-production version of the “Zhuk-A” radar version entered a test phase.

The development of the MiG-35 aircraft has been delayed for a long time mostly because its advanced radar system with the active phased array was not ready.

With this radar system, the light fighter aircraft will be turned into a fearsome fighter able to detect enemy aircraft of the same class at a distance of 200 km (practically, catching up with heavy-class fighter aircraft) and to efficiently fight the enemy beyond visual range (BVR). The MiG-35 will inherit excellent and even improved dog-fight maneuverability that the MiG-29 aircraft was famous for due to the installed thrust vector control RD-33MK engines.

New features such as the radar surface mapping function and optional reconnaissance and target sight airborne pods contribute to the performance of the MiG-35 as an attack aircraft. The aircraft will be able to use not only all available air-to-surface weapons, but also future developments.

The entire fleet of Russian light fighter aircraft will be replaced with the MiG-35. Russia is considering an option to sell this model to Kazakhstan which wants to replace their MiG-29. For this purpose, Russia is ready to permit local production in Kazakhstan.