Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Good Interview with 3 ex IAF Air Vice Marshal , All 3 swear by Mig-29UPG upgrade and more 21 is being procured and upgraded to UPG standard.
+72
diabetus
Eugenio Argentina
ALAMO
RTN
The-thing-next-door
Belisarius
11E
Podlodka77
TMA1
sepheronx
Arkanghelsk
andalusia
caveat emptor
bitcointrader70
Rasisuki Nebia
joker88
Russian_Patriot_
Broski
thegopnik
kvs
Mir
Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E
Yugo90
UZB-76
lancelot
Finty
limb
littlerabbit
Kiko
Scorpius
PapaDragon
The_Observer
GarryB
Backman
Flyboy77
Begome
Sujoy
LMFS
Isos
ahmedfire
flamming_python
Gomig-21
slasher
mnztr
medo
owais.usmani
mack8
MC-21
Cyberspec
AlfaT8
Rodion_Romanovic
marcellogo
MiamiMachineShop
southpark
Big_Gazza
Austin
_radioactive_
Nibiru
Hole
ATLASCUB
hoom
magnumcromagnon
Tsavo Lion
franco
ultimatewarrior
Stealthflanker
dino00
miketheterrible
JohninMK
George1
GunshipDemocracy
AMCXXL
76 posters
MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
mnztr- Posts : 2893
Points : 2931
Join date : 2018-01-21
So I wonder where these planes are from? Strorage or active planes already in upgrade process? I guess the RUF can just sell off the upgrade 29s and procure 35s as repalcement. Good for Russia, good for India and really great for MIG as they try to define their future. To me the projects that will define if MIG can regain its former glory over Sukhoi will be the MIG-41 and the lightweight 5G that has some Mig 29 compoents. To me the 35 is a truly underrated aircraft. Even the 29 UPG and K are very potent planes. 200m Take off WOW!! I have no idea why India does not just partner up with Russia to build a 5G mig 29 based plane. Lets face it their Tejas is scrap. If they want to save Tejas dial 911 SAAB who is the best at light fighters.
GarryB- Posts : 40520
Points : 41020
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The thing is that Tegas is a lighter aircraft than the 29, so it is effectively trying to be a new MiG-21 being light and cheap, but they seem to be trying to make it everything to everyone...
Personally I think with modern equipment you are never going to get cheap... that ship has sailed... and again this is just me but I think the best way going forward is to have basically three types... a heavy, a medium and a stealthy... the stealthy is never going to be cheap so it might as well be heavy to get the best performance potential, but to keep numbers you could have a cheaper low cost lower performance medium as a numbers aircraft.
The problem with light aircraft is that they will lack some critical features to keep them light and cheap... I think the role of cheap light fighters should be taken by armed drones... but I really don't think they will actually be cheap anyway.
And after the first few days when the Su-35s and Su-57s have taken down the AWACS and JSTARS and any inflight refuelling aircraft that wander too close, the threat from HATO will be dramatically reduced and both sides will likely be flying over much shorter distances with less time on station... which means the MiGs will be fine.
Of the range of jobs they will need to be able to do there might be 10-15% that need more range or missile fire power or stealth or speed than the 35 can manage, so Su-35s or Su-57s or MiG-31s need to be used, but for the rest why use a bigger much more expensive plane for a job a smaller lighter cheaper plane can perform... there are probably jobs the 29M can do instead of the 35... at a time when an F-35 costs almost 70K per hour to operate, they said the MiG-35 is 40% cheaper than the MiG-29... AFAIK operational costs for the MiG-29 were about 9K per hour... so 40% less is probably 6 to 5 K per hour...
Personally I think with modern equipment you are never going to get cheap... that ship has sailed... and again this is just me but I think the best way going forward is to have basically three types... a heavy, a medium and a stealthy... the stealthy is never going to be cheap so it might as well be heavy to get the best performance potential, but to keep numbers you could have a cheaper low cost lower performance medium as a numbers aircraft.
The problem with light aircraft is that they will lack some critical features to keep them light and cheap... I think the role of cheap light fighters should be taken by armed drones... but I really don't think they will actually be cheap anyway.
The SU will be much more expensive and require much more maint. then the Mig-35. The Mig will be about 80% as good. Once you blow away the AWACS and tankers the USAF and NATO will have very limited ability to attack at any distance
And after the first few days when the Su-35s and Su-57s have taken down the AWACS and JSTARS and any inflight refuelling aircraft that wander too close, the threat from HATO will be dramatically reduced and both sides will likely be flying over much shorter distances with less time on station... which means the MiGs will be fine.
Of the range of jobs they will need to be able to do there might be 10-15% that need more range or missile fire power or stealth or speed than the 35 can manage, so Su-35s or Su-57s or MiG-31s need to be used, but for the rest why use a bigger much more expensive plane for a job a smaller lighter cheaper plane can perform... there are probably jobs the 29M can do instead of the 35... at a time when an F-35 costs almost 70K per hour to operate, they said the MiG-35 is 40% cheaper than the MiG-29... AFAIK operational costs for the MiG-29 were about 9K per hour... so 40% less is probably 6 to 5 K per hour...
mnztr- Posts : 2893
Points : 2931
Join date : 2018-01-21
if a MIG 35 is as cheap as 6K/hour to operate...can I get a back seat ride if I pay for the training flight? 
Gomig-21 likes this post
GarryB- Posts : 40520
Points : 41020
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
From about 11:00 onwards is the bit on the 29...
mnztr- Posts : 2893
Points : 2931
Join date : 2018-01-21
wow the older 29's smoke like a goddamn B-52!!! 
GarryB- Posts : 40520
Points : 41020
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Yeah, but in the real world it doesn't actually matter very much... It is not like the B-52s are super vulnerable because of their smoke trails, nor the F-4 phantom for the same reason.... the fact is that having powerful reliable responsive engines that don't choke on reverse airflows like you get in tail slides or hard manouvering is much more valuable than not blowing a bit of smoke...
It is like the americans at airshows complaining that there are gaps in the panels of MiG-29s... so what... they used internal fuel tanks with their own skins, unlike western aircraft that needed sealed external surfaces to contain fuel...
In terms of aerodynamics and other factors important to the job at hand the smokey engines and not very tight fitting panels didn't make any difference at all, but they did make them cheaper and easier to operate...
It is like the americans at airshows complaining that there are gaps in the panels of MiG-29s... so what... they used internal fuel tanks with their own skins, unlike western aircraft that needed sealed external surfaces to contain fuel...
In terms of aerodynamics and other factors important to the job at hand the smokey engines and not very tight fitting panels didn't make any difference at all, but they did make them cheaper and easier to operate...
slasher- Posts : 196
Points : 194
Join date : 2015-09-28
Brief clip apparently showing recent footage of Russia's Mig-29SMT aircraft.
https://iz.ru/997131/video/v-astrakhani-proshli-ucheniia-istrebitelei-mig-29smt
https://iz.ru/997131/video/v-astrakhani-proshli-ucheniia-istrebitelei-mig-29smt
mnztr- Posts : 2893
Points : 2931
Join date : 2018-01-21
The SMT is the one Algeria declined correct? And now Russia has a sub-fleet of 60? Were any mig-29 deployed operationally with thrust vectoring?
GarryB- Posts : 40520
Points : 41020
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
My understanding is that the MiG-29OVT was the only one with full TVC and it was a display plane, not a service plane...
It is the old story... it is only eventually that they realise the value of these things... like ERA and like APS in tanks... TVC is not free but the cost is tiny compare to the capability it provides... I would think it would be useful for carrier aircraft to allow much lower approach speeds and lower stall speeds for takeoffs.
The official reason they declined the SMT MiGs was because the airframes were not produced brand new, but were stock left unused.
The actual reason is because Sukhoi offered Su-30s for the same price...
It is the old story... it is only eventually that they realise the value of these things... like ERA and like APS in tanks... TVC is not free but the cost is tiny compare to the capability it provides... I would think it would be useful for carrier aircraft to allow much lower approach speeds and lower stall speeds for takeoffs.
The official reason they declined the SMT MiGs was because the airframes were not produced brand new, but were stock left unused.
The actual reason is because Sukhoi offered Su-30s for the same price...
mnztr- Posts : 2893
Points : 2931
Join date : 2018-01-21
Hard to compete with that, I would take the SU as well. I am surprised the Russian govt allowed this nonsense. I understand TVC is still an option on the Mig 29. I wonder if it would help in a carrier landing as the Mig is already capable of very high angles of attack.
GarryB- Posts : 40520
Points : 41020
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Well actually I probably would go for the MiG... first of all it is fully multirole, but being a smaller lighter aircraft it should be rather cheaper to operate than the rather bigger Su-30.
Very long range patrol aircraft can cover enormous territory... but generally if there is no air field there why would you want to defend it?
If you have something worth defending then you likely have an air field nearby... any planes based there will be defending the local area so don't need enormous flight range... if you had an Su-30 based there you either wont be using its excellent range or if you are run the risk that your aircraft is a long way away when you might have cause to need it. Both aircraft have similar flight speeds and therefore can only cover a similar area at a time.
Very long range patrol aircraft can cover enormous territory... but generally if there is no air field there why would you want to defend it?
If you have something worth defending then you likely have an air field nearby... any planes based there will be defending the local area so don't need enormous flight range... if you had an Su-30 based there you either wont be using its excellent range or if you are run the risk that your aircraft is a long way away when you might have cause to need it. Both aircraft have similar flight speeds and therefore can only cover a similar area at a time.
Isos- Posts : 11599
Points : 11567
Join date : 2015-11-06
Anyone knows why mig-29/35 series don't have wing-tip harpoints for air to air missiles or jammers ?
It shares its design with su-27 which has them.
That would free space for missiles under the wings while the jamming pods would be mounted on the wingtips like on su-35.
Right now the russian ECM pods for Mig29/35 take 2 hardpoints under the wings. Only the belorussian Talisman ECM pod allow to mount a r-73 under it allowing to mount the max number of missiles.
I understand basic A or B or S variants were interceptors so they didn't need them but multirole versions like the M or 35 would be better with them allowing to carry 3 fuel tanks, 6 air to air missiles and 2 other missiles or ECM.
Now it would be limited to 4 missiles if it carries ECM pods and fuel tanks.
It shares its design with su-27 which has them.
That would free space for missiles under the wings while the jamming pods would be mounted on the wingtips like on su-35.
Right now the russian ECM pods for Mig29/35 take 2 hardpoints under the wings. Only the belorussian Talisman ECM pod allow to mount a r-73 under it allowing to mount the max number of missiles.
I understand basic A or B or S variants were interceptors so they didn't need them but multirole versions like the M or 35 would be better with them allowing to carry 3 fuel tanks, 6 air to air missiles and 2 other missiles or ECM.
Now it would be limited to 4 missiles if it carries ECM pods and fuel tanks.
miketheterrible- Posts : 7383
Points : 7341
Join date : 2016-11-06
Initial design flaw most likely.
Hole- Posts : 11116
Points : 11094
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
The wing geometry is different from that of the Su-27 family. A total redesign of the wings would cost a pretty penny so they stick with it.
GarryB- Posts : 40520
Points : 41020
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
I honestly don't know.
I do know that the F-16 actually needs wingtip missiles to act as a wing fence because the wing is slightly too small, and that the C model MiG-29 had wingtip EW equipment... not as a physical pod, but as embedded antenna inside the wing.
Could just as easily ask why no aircraft have weapon pylons on top of their wings like the Jaguar does...
Being the medium range close in protection fighter/interceptor I suspect having as many pylons as possible wasn't considered important.
I mean there have been plenty of wars where the two sides had fighter planes with missiles... they never seem to fire more than one or two missiles at targets and the idea that 8 missiles wont be enough suggests computer game mentality rather than anything actually realistic.
An airborne fighter plane like a MiG-29 in a mass attack with hundreds of incoming cruise missiles or drones or standoff weapon attacks... the difference between carrying 8 missiles and ten missiles is not enormous... but having an airborne platform that can track large numbers of targets and hand that information to ground forces who can then use that target information to launch ground based missiles to get kills makes rather more sense.
Certainly not a design flaw.
I do know that the F-16 actually needs wingtip missiles to act as a wing fence because the wing is slightly too small, and that the C model MiG-29 had wingtip EW equipment... not as a physical pod, but as embedded antenna inside the wing.
Could just as easily ask why no aircraft have weapon pylons on top of their wings like the Jaguar does...
Being the medium range close in protection fighter/interceptor I suspect having as many pylons as possible wasn't considered important.
I mean there have been plenty of wars where the two sides had fighter planes with missiles... they never seem to fire more than one or two missiles at targets and the idea that 8 missiles wont be enough suggests computer game mentality rather than anything actually realistic.
An airborne fighter plane like a MiG-29 in a mass attack with hundreds of incoming cruise missiles or drones or standoff weapon attacks... the difference between carrying 8 missiles and ten missiles is not enormous... but having an airborne platform that can track large numbers of targets and hand that information to ground forces who can then use that target information to launch ground based missiles to get kills makes rather more sense.
Certainly not a design flaw.
GarryB- Posts : 40520
Points : 41020
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The process of replacing Ukrainian technology from Soviet products continues... it seems the Sura helmet mounted targeting systems are due to be replaced with a Russian model very soon...
... which I take to mean that this Russian company has made new helmet mounted targeting sights for fighter aircraft and has already made them for the new and upgraded Flankers the Russian Air Force has in service, and now they are doing the same for the MiGs...
Good job.
https://tass.com/defense/1168295
Pilots of Russia’s MiG combat planes to get helmet-mounted target acquisition systems
The systems are to replace the imported Ukrainian devices, according to the supplier
ST. PETERSBURG, June 16. /TASS/. The Electroautomatics Experimental Design Bureau plans to start the deliveries of domestically-produced helmet-mounted target acquisition and display systems for MiG planes in 2021, Electroautomatics First Deputy CEO Anatoly Shukalov said on Tuesday.
"As for the planes developed by the Mikoyan firm [MiG aircraft], the devices that we demonstrated from the viewpoint of substituting the imported Ukrainian systems with our versions on Sukhoi planes, which was done, precisely the same work is underway for replacing the items on the aircraft developed by the Mikoyan firm," the first deputy CEO said, responding to the corresponding question from TASS.
"In principle, next year [we will begin the deliveries to the troops] and nothing impedes this process. The system itself is autonomous and has undergone trials. Only the mathematical software has to be finalized for interaction with the aircraft’s systems," he said.
The Electroautomatics Experimental Design Bureau started the deliveries of helmeted-mounted target acquisition and display systems for aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Force’s tactical aviation back in 2016 to replace Ukrainian versions. In particular, the domestically produced helmet-mounted displays were used to substitute the imported Ukrainian Sura systems and their modifications earlier produced by the Arsenal Design Bureau on Su-27SM3, Su-30SM and Su-35S aircraft.
... which I take to mean that this Russian company has made new helmet mounted targeting sights for fighter aircraft and has already made them for the new and upgraded Flankers the Russian Air Force has in service, and now they are doing the same for the MiGs...
Good job.
https://tass.com/defense/1168295
miketheterrible- Posts : 7383
Points : 7341
Join date : 2016-11-06
Interesting. While I was fully aware they replaced the helmet mounted systems for the Sukhois, I seriously thought they were backwards compatible with the MiG aircraft. I guess not.
GarryB- Posts : 40520
Points : 41020
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
I wonder if they have made any attempt to improve them.
AFAIK the old monocle had a blinking crosshair cursor, so you basically activated the helmet mounted sight which made it flip down in front of your eye and a solid crosshair is lit up. You then turn your head to place that crosshair on an enemy aircraft or ground target and depending on the mode you are in you either direct the radar or the IRST sensor or the IR sensor of an R-73 mounted on your wing to look precisely at where you are looking. It means your radar or missile or IRST don't have to scan very much to locate the target essentially you are pointing the system at the target and telling it to look there.
Once the radar or the IRST have a lock you get range either from the radar or with an IRST lock you can use the laser rangefinder to give precise range information... if it was an R-73 missile you were locking once you get a lock the crosshair starts flashing so you are free to pull the trigger and launch the missile.
You don't need to follow the target or anything... it should chase it down itself...
With them bringing out new army visors with information in optical displays for Ratnik III due in 2025, and likely helmet displays for Su-57 and Mi-28NM and Ka-52 they might have done more than just copy the old systems hopefully.
AFAIK the old monocle had a blinking crosshair cursor, so you basically activated the helmet mounted sight which made it flip down in front of your eye and a solid crosshair is lit up. You then turn your head to place that crosshair on an enemy aircraft or ground target and depending on the mode you are in you either direct the radar or the IRST sensor or the IR sensor of an R-73 mounted on your wing to look precisely at where you are looking. It means your radar or missile or IRST don't have to scan very much to locate the target essentially you are pointing the system at the target and telling it to look there.
Once the radar or the IRST have a lock you get range either from the radar or with an IRST lock you can use the laser rangefinder to give precise range information... if it was an R-73 missile you were locking once you get a lock the crosshair starts flashing so you are free to pull the trigger and launch the missile.
You don't need to follow the target or anything... it should chase it down itself...
With them bringing out new army visors with information in optical displays for Ratnik III due in 2025, and likely helmet displays for Su-57 and Mi-28NM and Ka-52 they might have done more than just copy the old systems hopefully.
Gomig-21- Posts : 746
Points : 748
Join date : 2016-07-17
Isos wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/mig-29k-carrier-based-multirole-fighter-aircraft-russia/amp/
A nice and complete article about mig-29k with many technical references and descriptions. R-37E is compatible with zukh ME according to them.
Do we know the exact list of weapons that were sold to the EAF with the 46 MiG-29m/m2/35 (I'm going to call it the 35 from now on just FYI since I think it's just way too close not to be if really the Zhuk-ME is in them and not the Zhuk-AE shouldn't negate it from being a MiG-35 IMO) but I digress! lol
I'm very curious to know if anything beyond the R-73, R-77 and which variant of the latter to be precise and if they ordered or recieved the venerable R-27ER or ET? Let alone the R-37 which I doubt because of the range although Egypt is expected to get the Meteor with it's order of Rafales and Russia is typically more lenient in issuing weapons, or you would think unless Netanyhu had a one-on-one with Putin and got on his knees and begged him not to sell anything of the over-300km variety to Egypt because of the reasons we all know.
And other than the KH-31 I believe along with the 2 types of A2A missiles that we have seen on EAF MiGs, anyone know if there are other weapons in the export package? Thanks in advance, fellas.
GarryB- Posts : 40520
Points : 41020
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Not sure, but would say I agree with you about the MiG-35... the MiG-29M2 and MiG-35 share the same airframe but little else as most systems and parts are improved on the 35. If it doesn't have the final AESA radar yet it is still a 35 and not a 29M2.
The PESA radar on the MiG-29M2 is a good radar... there is no point rushing an AESA that is not ready yet in to service because it will be rather expensive and a mature PESA is better than an immature AESA and much much cheaper.
When the AESAs are ready it would not take long to swap them over.
The PESA radar on the MiG-29M2 is a good radar... there is no point rushing an AESA that is not ready yet in to service because it will be rather expensive and a mature PESA is better than an immature AESA and much much cheaper.
When the AESAs are ready it would not take long to swap them over.
Gomig-21 likes this post
Isos- Posts : 11599
Points : 11567
Join date : 2015-11-06
I think the newly build M are not the same as the first M version from the 90s.
It shares a lot of new stuff from the KR and 35 versions which is not the same as the very first K version from the 80s.
Radar is not the only critical thing in an aircraft. A very good RWR is more important.
Egypt also ordered kh31 and kh38 for its mig-29. They also have ordered targeting pods so they will get some guided bombs too.
It shares a lot of new stuff from the KR and 35 versions which is not the same as the very first K version from the 80s.
Radar is not the only critical thing in an aircraft. A very good RWR is more important.
Egypt also ordered kh31 and kh38 for its mig-29. They also have ordered targeting pods so they will get some guided bombs too.
Gomig-21 likes this post
ahmedfire- Posts : 2366
Points : 2548
Join date : 2010-11-11
Location : The Land Of Pharaohs
Isos wrote:I think the newly build M are not the same as the first M version from the 90s.
It shares a lot of new stuff from the KR and 35 versions which is not the same as the very first K version from the 80s.
Radar is not the only critical thing in an aircraft. A very good RWR is more important.
Egypt also ordered kh31 and kh38 for its mig-29. They also have ordered targeting pods so they will get some guided bombs too.
Yes some Russian experts said the EAF Mig version is near to the Mig-35 .
Gomig-21 likes this post
GarryB- Posts : 40520
Points : 41020
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
To be clear the MiG-29M and MiG-29M2 are totally different aircraft.
The MiG-29M change the structure and design of the aircraft but is essentially teh same aircraft body shape as the previous MiG-29s... it is a single seat aircraft.
The MiG-29M2 and MiG-29KR and MiG-35 all share the same new fuselage and you can tell it immediately from previous models because it has a two seat canopy design. It can have one or two seats but both types have the same shape canopy and can be changed from single to twin and back to single seat layout.
The old MiGs were different designs... the single seat had a standard radar and one seat while the twin seat had a longer canopy and tiny range only radar in the nose and could not use SARH missiles.
Another thing is that the new aircraft have a sharp leading edge on the leading edge wing root extension, while the older models had curved edges.
AFAIK the new aircraft types are all fully capable of carrying the very latest Russian weapons and weapon pods including the RVV-BD if you want it.
I don't think the export AESA radar is ready yet so it uses a simpler radar set but once it is ready I suspect it will be fitted soon enough.
The MiG-29M change the structure and design of the aircraft but is essentially teh same aircraft body shape as the previous MiG-29s... it is a single seat aircraft.
The MiG-29M2 and MiG-29KR and MiG-35 all share the same new fuselage and you can tell it immediately from previous models because it has a two seat canopy design. It can have one or two seats but both types have the same shape canopy and can be changed from single to twin and back to single seat layout.
The old MiGs were different designs... the single seat had a standard radar and one seat while the twin seat had a longer canopy and tiny range only radar in the nose and could not use SARH missiles.
Another thing is that the new aircraft have a sharp leading edge on the leading edge wing root extension, while the older models had curved edges.
AFAIK the new aircraft types are all fully capable of carrying the very latest Russian weapons and weapon pods including the RVV-BD if you want it.
I don't think the export AESA radar is ready yet so it uses a simpler radar set but once it is ready I suspect it will be fitted soon enough.
ahmedfire and dino00 like this post
ahmedfire- Posts : 2366
Points : 2548
Join date : 2010-11-11
Location : The Land Of Pharaohs
GarryB wrote:To be clear the MiG-29M and MiG-29M2 are totally different aircraft.
The MiG-29M change the structure and design of the aircraft but is essentially teh same aircraft body shape as the previous MiG-29s... it is a single seat aircraft.
The MiG-29M2 and MiG-29KR and MiG-35 all share the same new fuselage and you can tell it immediately from previous models because it has a two seat canopy design. It can have one or two seats but both types have the same shape canopy and can be changed from single to twin and back to single seat layout.
The old MiGs were different designs... the single seat had a standard radar and one seat while the twin seat had a longer canopy and tiny range only radar in the nose and could not use SARH missiles.
Another thing is that the new aircraft have a sharp leading edge on the leading edge wing root extension, while the older models had curved edges.
AFAIK the new aircraft types are all fully capable of carrying the very latest Russian weapons and weapon pods including the RVV-BD if you want it.
I don't think the export AESA radar is ready yet so it uses a simpler radar set but once it is ready I suspect it will be fitted soon enough.
The photo speaks .
R-77 ,KH-38 ,T-220 Pod .
GarryB likes this post