MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

In addition to previous post...

The "Swifts" aerobatic team turned 30 years old

Today marks the 30th anniversary of the aviation aerobatics group "Swifts".

The formation of a group of military pilots who perfectly master the technique of aerobatics to perform demonstration flights on the MiG-29 began in the fighter aviation regiment in Kubinka in the mid-80s, when aircraft of this type were just being mastered in the Air Force (Air Force).

The official birthday of the band is May 6, 1991, when it first performed at an aviation show called "Swifts". The first group consisted of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Kutuzov-leader, Captain Alexander Katashinsky, Captain Andrey Makarenko, Major Alexander Zakharov, Major Alexey Sherstnev, Major Vladimir Galunenko, Major Valery Evdokimov.

In October 1991, the Swifts performed for the first time abroad at the Uppsala air base in Sweden, and in May 1992, a group of 6 MiG-29s impressed the French audience with their skills at a celebration dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the Normandy-Niemen squadron.

In the following years, "Swifts" with dignity represented the aviation of our country in Malaysia, Belgium, Thailand, Hungary, Holland, Bulgaria, the United States, Vietnam, China, Mongolia, Germany, Kazakhstan, the Czech Republic, and the United Arab Emirates.

In 1993, the Strizhi aerobatic team was awarded the title of "The Best Aerobatic Team in the World".

In 2004, the complex of displays included a joint flight of the aerobatic groups "Strizhi"and" Russian Knights " consisting of nine aircraft (5 Su-27 and 4 MiG-29) in the "rhombus" formation with the performance of a full complex of aerobatics. This fact in itself became a world record in the history of aviation. This nine was called the "Cuban diamond". It is in this formation that the "Swifts" participate in the air parade over Red Square on May 9.

The flight program is constantly being improved.

In 2021, the Strizhi aerobatic team radically updated its program and for the first time will demonstrate group aerobatics with a large number of changes in the air as part of 9 crews.

https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12359816@egNews

Do they fly these planes fully equipped or do they remove the combat equipment for display flying?

There were infamous events in the past where that was the case, since then as far as I know the Russian acrobatic squadrons only use standard combat planes with the only difference of the paint

Russia’s latest MiG-35 multirole fighter at final stage of trials, says defense contractor

The MiG official was interviewed by TASS on the occasion of the anniversary of the Strizhi (Swifts) aerobatic group

MOSCOW, May 6. /TASS/. Russia’s latest Mikoyan MiG-35 generation-4++ multirole fighter jet is undergoing its final state trials, Director of the MiG-29M, MiG-35 and Light Multi-Purpose Frontline Aircraft Programs Directorate at the MiG Aircraft Corporation (part of the United Aircraft Corporation) Musheg Baloyan told TASS on Thursday.

The MiG official was interviewed by TASS on the occasion of the anniversary of the Strizhi (Swifts) aerobatic group.

"The MiG-35 is at the stage of state joint trials and a preliminary certificate has been obtained for launching the production of a pilot batch of the aircraft. The flight personnel are fond of the plane, which is easy to operate and that helps a lot. There are issues that do arise in the process of the aircraft’s operation and we are promptly ironing them out together with our customer [the Russian Defense Ministry]," Baloyan said.

The latest MiG-35 generation-4++ multirole fighter is a follow-up of the MiG-29K/KUB and the MiG-29M/M2. The cutting-edge combat plane entered flight tests and demonstrated its capabilities to potential foreign customers in January 2017. The fighter’s factory trials came to an end in December 2017.

The MiG-35 is designated to operate in areas of highly intense armed conflicts under an enemy’s dense and multi-layered air defenses.

https://tass.com/defense/1286929

When upgrading su-30sm into sm2 standards, you are basically gutting the whole aircraft's electronic systems and changing it. That is going to be costly especially the first models, for each su-30sm2 you are going to need two pilots at bare minimum..
While su-35 needs only one in comparison, that also plays a role

I have a PC box I bought in 1997... if I want to keep using it I will struggle to find RAM modules to fit it, or graphics cards to install that will work on such an old motherboard.

It is an AT-X standard PC box however so I can take out the old motherboard and CPU and RAM and put in a brand new motherboard with new CPU and modern RAM cards and a new graphics card and have a system as capable and as modern as any new computer.

Replacing the old components with new components actually makes it much better and much more efficient and upgrades and using new software is much easier and much better.

Going from a 1998 PC with 56 Baud dialup to my current 1GB broadband connection is a massive improvement on its own, and plugging in new digital TV and radio tuners and other modern equipment is much much easier than trying to do it on a 650Mhz Athlon computer with USB 1.2 and Windows 98.

It would improve commonality across the fleet having them all fitted with the same engines and avionics and LCD screens and radar and onboard computer networks... more importantly it would be all Russian so you would be eliminating potential back door hardware from your aircraft.

An Su-30 would not require two pilots... it should be able to operate perfectly well with just one if you wanted to.

No if by that token support you get to convince foreign buyers the plane is real and usable.

The Russian air force would end up with an aircraft they will only use in tiny numbers... making them horribly expensive to support and operate... even if it gets contracts for export, why would the Russian AF care about that?

How can flying a plane the Russian AF no longer operates represent the Russian Air Force?

Twice the engines is twice the service tasks, twice the spares and twice the amount of pieces that can fail. No amount of mental gymnastics is going to change that.

And if the engines are simple and easy to maintain and service twice bugger all is still bugger all. Having twice the number of engines reduces the chance of total engine failure... it does not increase it.... otherwise the B-52 would be the least reliable aircraft in the world... and the most expensive to maintain.

The engine should be the easy part, having one instead of two. Avionics for small or big planes take roughly the same space, granted radar will be smaller, mainly the antenna and power supply. Many other elements are modular or can be scaled down relatively easy. All life support can be identical, as many other elements. And in general all the technologies can be applied, reducing substantially the development and production costs. It is elementary to proceed like Russia has done.

But the new engine will be bigger than either of the current engines so it wont take up half the internal space of the existing two engines. A smaller radar wont do a huge amount to fit stuff in a smaller plane... most parts are modular and don't scale down at all... life support, ejection seat, etc etc are the same size so will take up more space in a smaller aircraft than they would in a larger aircraft. Internal weapons bays will have less room but will need to carry a basic load.... by reusing existing technologies you are essentially going to fill the smaller aircraft to capacity much faster... so fuel and weapon capacity will have to be dramatically reduced.

So Russia using Su-27 still is sacrificing their pilots?

They will eventually be replaced, just like pilots flying Mig-29s.

The force is planed as a whole and no "second rate" planes are used, simply ones are defined for certain missions which other planes should not attempt.

Not no second rate planes are used... no second rate planes are bought. Existing planes might be upgraded or replaced.

No, a customer needs to know that MiG is not delivering a half backed PoS, they need to know the manufacturer is also hold accountable by the VKS and ensure the product they receive is real, fully developed, supported and hence operational

And just using new MiGs in a non operational non frontline non military aerobatic display team role is proving the performance of the MiGs to foreign customers how?

No way, that would mean the LMFS is little more than a trainer...

It will have two engines too.

The industrial base issue is relevant indeed, I am not sure what the development and specialization path for each company in UEC is...

There are enough requirements for engines in Russia in all sorts of platforms and roles to keep Klimov and Saturn busy.

You don't have any hard evidence of such policy and you know it.

All the single engined aircraft were withdrawn from service at a time when the MiG-27K and MiG-27M were still rather capable light strike aircraft and the MiG-21 was the cheapest plane in their inventory...

The only two planes they have/are adopted/ing since 1990 with one engine.... the Yak-152 and replacement for the An-2.

The only single engined aircraft they have in service are the L39 and An-2.

Okhotnik has one engine, many Migs in the times of far less reliable engines were, and now UEC is proposing the PLIB

Lots of unmanned drones with one engine... lots of missiles with one rocket motor too...

That sadly got no proper replacement...

MiG-29 is a much more capable aircraft in every respect... even the early bog standard model.

And no AB, to make it even worse.

They suit the size of the aircraft and its role.... even 7-8 ton thrust engines in full AB would not make it supersonic but would burn a lot more fuel and make it a much shorter ranged aircraft...

Same problem as with the Yak-38 and Yak-38M... both subsonic only, but the more powerful engine in the Yak-38M improved acceleration but didn't change speed and shortened operational range and time on station with a very similar payload.

Do they fly these planes fully equipped or do they remove the combat equipment for display flying?

Normal military aircraft, but normally unarmed.

Dummy weapons with smoke emitters, but not usually full weapon load of dummies.

The MiG-35s they use in the Swifts will likely include TVC and therefore be similar to the MiG-29OVT in aerobatic performance...

GarryB wrote:The Russian air force would end up with an aircraft they will only use in tiny numbers... making them horribly expensive to support and operate... even if it gets contracts for export, why would the Russian AF care about that?

How can flying a plane the Russian AF no longer operates represent the Russian Air Force?

The modern Sukhois went to the combat squadrons and only then to the aerobatic ones. For the MiG-35 seems to be the other way around, plus MiG-29 are a token force in the VKS. There is an obvious PR side to this, and it is completely legitimate BTW.

And if the engines are simple and easy to maintain and service twice bugger all is still bugger all.

I don't know exactly what is the weight of the engine maintenance in the overall maintenance cost / effort of the plane, but I don't think there are many items in the fighter which are as delicate, expensive, wear affected and difficult to handle as a modern jet engine. Not even close IMHO. And having twice as many means twice as many tasks as said above, it is out of discussion. So this is a factor that cannot be dismissed.

Having twice the number of engines reduces the chance of total engine failure... it does not increase it....

But it more than doubles the chance of failure, because you have on the one hand the doubled amount of parts, and then the substantial chance of an engine failure affecting the other systems of the plane, including the neighbouring engine (one important reason for the way twin engine planes are designed in Russia). A broken blade is going to tear the whole airframe, severing fuel and control lines and destroying anything in its path including another engine. Just read about actual accidents, contained engine failures are a fraction of the total. Plus you have increased amount of ancillaries. This is the way redundancy and reliability works from a technical perspective.

But the new engine will be bigger than either of the current engines so it wont take up half the internal space of the existing two engines.

Nobody is talking about a light fighter having half of the size of the medium one, but rather 2/3 and 1/2 of the heavy fighter. Half the thrust for half the weight is essentially no change in TWR.

A smaller radar wont do a huge amount to fit stuff in a smaller plane...

Obviously the radar of a F-15 does not fit in the nose of the F-16 nor can it be fed with the same power than small radar. They are heavy equipment placed very far from the CoG and they indeed are very relevant for the design of the plane.

most parts are modular and don't scale down at all... life support, ejection seat, etc etc are the same size so will take up more space in a smaller aircraft than they would in a larger aircraft. Internal weapons bays will have less room but will need to carry a basic load.... by reusing existing technologies you are essentially going to fill the smaller aircraft to capacity much faster... so fuel and weapon capacity will have to be dramatically reduced.

That is why you have less range in the smaller planes. As to the payload, you would get roughly half of what the Su-57 gets. You are again overstating the impact of the life support systems, they are a low fraction of the weight of the plane.

And just using new MiGs in a non operational non frontline non military aerobatic display team role is proving the performance of the MiGs to foreign customers how?

That is the key question, who knows what amount of airframes are needed for that? Having them in the Swifts proves at least that they are real instead of virtual. Russia and other countries have already the basis of that model (M/K versions) operational, but all those fancy improvements claimed for the MiG-35 are always changing and never proven. It makes sense that at least the design is frozen, produced, accepted through state tests and operational.

There are enough requirements for engines in Russia in all sorts of platforms and roles to keep Klimov and Saturn busy.

I think so, Aviadvigatel does civilian turbofan, Kuznetsov derivatives of the NK-32, Saturn fighter engines and Klimov turboshafts. They can compete all with all, in all segments, and not achieve anything in the long run.

The MiG-35s they use in the Swifts will likely include TVC and therefore be similar to the MiG-29OVT in aerobatic performance...

Bet accepted

There is an obvious PR side to this, and it is completely legitimate BTW.

There is an economic side to this as well, which is even more legitimate.

If they only have Flankers then they wont be able to afford to have enough fighters in their inventory... leaving them vulnerable.

And having twice as many means twice as many tasks as said above, it is out of discussion. So this is a factor that cannot be dismissed.

Having to turn on two engines for the pilot is so burdensome that many just outright refuse to fly aircraft with more than one engine...

In terms of safety you could have one team servicing each engine so a mistake wont effect both engines...

Modern jet fighters have fully computerised systems with sensors and equipment in them that reports problems and issues. When things get replaced it is normally after a use period when they might be examined to determine if there are any problems, so they might use them slightly longer, but the difference would not be huge.

These are no WWII engines with a 200 hour running lifespan before they are replaced.

But it more than doubles the chance of failure,

It does not more than double the chance of a failure. The chance of both engines failing at the same time is next to zero which means it offers better safety.

because you have on the one hand the doubled amount of parts, and then the substantial chance of an engine failure affecting the other systems of the plane,

Some parts will never fail, and only specific parts suffer wear and heat.

including the neighbouring engine (one important reason for the way twin engine planes are designed in Russia). A broken blade is going to tear the whole airframe, severing fuel and control lines and destroying anything in its path including another engine. Just read about actual accidents, contained engine failures are a fraction of the total. Plus you have increased amount of ancillaries. This is the way redundancy and reliability works from a technical perspective.

So why are the A-10 and the Su-25 twin jets... why to the vast majority of military helicopters have two engines, why to all current and planned Russian fighters have two engines... the Yak-130 and MiG-AT could both have been cheaper with single engines...

Perhaps you are wrong about twin engine safety.

Nobody is talking about a light fighter having half of the size of the medium one, but rather 2/3 and 1/2 of the heavy fighter. Half the thrust for half the weight is essentially no change in TWR.

The MiG-35 is their current light fighter and the LMFS with internal weapon bay will by definition be heavier... it seems their ability to make their light aircraft cheap to operate has nothing to do with dry weight.

That is why you have less range in the smaller planes. As to the payload, you would get roughly half of what the Su-57 gets. You are again overstating the impact of the life support systems, they are a low fraction of the weight of the plane.

The reason for a big plane is range and payload. Smaller planes do all the same things over shorter ranges with more opportunities to rearm.

Russia and other countries have already the basis of that model (M/K versions) operational, but all those fancy improvements claimed for the MiG-35 are always changing and never proven.

Yeah, so the LMFS is probably a total waste of time too right?

It makes sense that at least the design is frozen, produced, accepted through state tests and operational.

From whose perspective. I doubt the Russian AF gives a crap about export prospects for MiG... they want a specific product... MiG has tried to create that and have handed some over to the Air Force so they can see if it is good enough.

I think so, Aviadvigatel does civilian turbofan, Kuznetsov derivatives of the NK-32, Saturn fighter engines and Klimov turboshafts.

Klimov does fighter engines too. Saturn also does ship based propulsion systems...

They can compete all with all, in all segments, and not achieve anything in the long run.

They can compete where they think they have a good enough product to win and get the contract.

Bet accepted

What bet?

The MiG-35s they use in the Swifts will likely include TVC and therefore be similar to the MiG-29OVT in aerobatic performance...

I would think it would be natural to expect a jet fighter design intended for aerobatics would include a feature that makes them more manouverable...

GarryB wrote:It does not more than double the chance of a failure.

Keep in mind that I am not talking about critical failures, but about failures in general. And twice the amount of pieces + additional mutual influences between them creates more than twice the failures no matter what. Twin engines exchange a higher theoretical amount of overall failures and maintenance expenses for a lower criticality, since small failure that would mean a loss in a single engine plane may be recoverable with two engines, but keep in mind engine failures are abnormal conditions and such situations hardly remain isolated in a complex system with lots of interdependencies like a plane, very frequently affecting other systems, you can see this with the safety records kept for the F-15 and F-16, where there is actually a high number of near misses for the F-15 because failures are not contained and because additional ancillaries are an additional source of failure. Both approaches work fine as seen from the experience of so many air forces, no need to demonize single engines as if they were madness. They have been working and will continue to do so.

So why are the A-10 and the Su-25 twin jets...

CAS planes are better off with two engines IMHO. The role is increasingly being substituted by drones BTW.

Perhaps you are wrong about twin engine safety.

I suggest that you read again what I said

The MiG-35 is their current light fighter

It is a medium fighter by today's standards, and actually as heavy as an F-15

and the LMFS with internal weapon bay will by definition be heavier...

Depends on what size of airframe is selected. As said and based on actually trying to be concrete in terms of dimensions and layout (unlike what you seem to think, there is no real alternative to actually going to the detail), I think a plane with empty weight of 10 t and with a central section a bit longer than that of a F-16, plus enlarged wing-body transition for more fuel, could work. Work by Saab produced essentially the same results, so I am not simply pulling things out of my rear here. But if you just take the MiG-29 and add weapon bays then of course it will be heavier. They are already using 20% composites in the MiG-35 and it is significantly heavier than the MiG-29, so that way alone would not produce a much lighter plane. The advantage of the way I propose is that such plane could be powered by one AL-41F1 or izd. 30, bigger planes would need two engines or do something very exotic and expensive with some bigger engine.

it seems their ability to make their light aircraft cheap to operate has nothing to do with dry weight.

You say that, without even knowing that is the operational cost of the MiG-29/35 compared to the Flankers. I have references, and the proportion follows almost exactly the weight proportion between such planes. In any case this is pure speculation on your side and demonstrably false, because fuel is a main driver of cost and it depends on weight almost directly.

The reason for a big plane is range and payload. Smaller planes do all the same things over shorter ranges with more opportunities to rearm

Yes, basically we agree on that

Yeah, so the LMFS is probably a total waste of time too right?

No idea what does it have to do with my point

From whose perspective. I doubt the Russian AF gives a crap about export prospects for MiG... they want a specific product... MiG has tried to create that and have handed some over to the Air Force so they can see if it is good enough.

There is a government above them with reasons of state to attend and to which armed forces need to compromise, like they did so many times in the past, with the Mistrals for instance. VKS does not seem to be in love with the MiG-29, also not with the MiG-29M and until now they are dragging their feet with the MiG-35. That is how I perceive it, but the situation can be very complex to fully understand it from the outside. We will see if they order big or not.

They can compete where they think they have a good enough product to win and get the contract.

And Salut too, so let all of them do the huge investments, fight for the specialists and so on, wasting money and dividing efforts in an activity where scale is critical. It makes no sense and it is obvious that Rostec is pursuing a strategy of consolidation and creation of competence centers. But as said, let's just wait and see.

What bet?

That there will be no OVT nozzle in the MiG-35

I would think it would be natural to expect a jet fighter design intended for aerobatics would include a feature that makes them more manouverable...

No modern MiG-29/35 has been equipped with that true 3D nozzle, which BTW was way more complex than the angled 2D used in the Flankers and Su-57. That was a proposal and has not bee developed further or tested in any practical way, so the odds of seeing it in the serial planes is really low.

Keep in mind that I am not talking about critical failures, but about failures in general.

With a single engine all engine failures are critical.

Reminds me about the joke of an F-16 pilot escorting a B-52 for a short period... he soon gets bored and does a loop around the bomber and says you can't do that... after a few minutes the B-52 says... bet you can't do that... and the F-16 pilot says... do what... the B-52 pilot replies... just shut down two of my engines to reduce fuel burn...

Both approaches work fine as seen from the experience of so many air forces, no need to demonize single engines as if they were madness. They have been working and will continue to do so.

When economic times are tough the Russians took the step of eliminating as many single engined platforms from their military as they could.

The MiG-29M has shown that it can be twin engined and cheap to operate.

CAS planes are better off with two engines IMHO.

Why?

The role is increasingly being substituted by drones BTW.

But is it? Not a lot of air forces actually have dedicated CAS aircraft... the standard weapons used by the Su-25 are not guided expensive weapons... they tend to be 250kg bombs and 80mm rockets and 30mm cannon fire... not many drones carry those on a regular basis AFAIK.

Most drones that are armed are intended as recon and observation and when targets of opportunity appear they can immediately respond, almost peace time systems really.... but when a friendly force is conducting an operation it is Su-25s and A-10s that are used to support the attacks which is more what CAS is.

It is a medium fighter by today's standards, and actually as heavy as an F-15

Who cares what it would be considered in the west.... the T-34 would be a light tank in the German army, but the Soviets considered it a medium tank.

A KV-1 would be a light tank in the US Army today...

Depends on what size of airframe is selected.

The airframe would have to be bigger than the MiG-29 to carry weapons internally...

They are already using 20% composites in the MiG-35 and it is significantly heavier than the MiG-29, so that way alone would not produce a much lighter plane. The advantage of the way I propose is that such plane could be powered by one AL-41F1 or izd. 30, bigger planes would need two engines or do something very exotic and expensive with some bigger engine.

The fact that the MiG-35 is not lighter suggests their goal is not to make the lightest thing they can make, and with it being significantly cheaper to operate than current MiG-29s suggests heavier is not actually a big problem.

Maybe if the Gripen was a bit heavier it would be a better aircraft.

You say that, without even knowing that is the operational cost of the MiG-29/35 compared to the Flankers.

They are making serious claims about how cheap it is to operate compared with their original MiG-29 models... if it wasn't cheaper why would they even bother with MiG-35s let alone a 5th gen replacement for it?

No idea what does it have to do with my point

If MiG are lying about what the MiG-35 can do, how could they be trusted with the LMFS programme?

VKS does not seem to be in love with the MiG-29, also not with the MiG-29M and until now they are dragging their feet with the MiG-35.

You are making crap up to fit your world view. The VKS never ordered MiG-29Ms so not ordering any is no real surprise... and the MiG-35 is not ready for service yet... it is still completing development and transitioning into service so where does dragging feet come from in that regard?

By the same view the Russian AF must hate the SU-57 because they don't have hundreds in service and are only producing serial models now... why did they drag their feet all this time on something they claim is important?

They have had Su-30s in service for ages... only upgrading them now with Su-35 level components... it is pure corruption that all these models of Flanker all use different engines and different avionics that are not compatible... blah blah blah...

We will see if they order big or not.

Some officials in the Air Force talk about 100s because it essentially is the MIG-21 and MiG-27 and Su-17 all rolled in to one aircraft from Frontal Aviation.... enormous range is not important... but lower cost operations is.

And Salut too, so let all of them do the huge investments, fight for the specialists and so on, wasting money and dividing efforts in an activity where scale is critical. It makes no sense and it is obvious that Rostec is pursuing a strategy of consolidation and creation of competence centers. But as said, let's just wait and see.

They are all departments in one overall company aren't they... let the management decide where money should be invested in each department and sometimes work can be coordinated and sometimes not.

That there will be no OVT nozzle in the MiG-35

The nozzles are kits that can be attached and removed like wing pylons.

If the Swifts using the MiG-35 is for sales, and their main focus is aerobatics then I would think the extra maintenance costs would be well worth it.

For an operational fighter unit they might decide the benefits don't warrant its use.

No modern MiG-29/35 has been equipped with that true 3D nozzle, which BTW was way more complex than the angled 2D used in the Flankers and Su-57. That was a proposal and has not bee developed further or tested in any practical way, so the odds of seeing it in the serial planes is really low.

Surely for a PR unit that flys aerobatics as its primary role it would be worth it... funding for it will no doubt be used in the engines used in the LMFS, so it makes sense to get it into service and a bit of operational maturity...

LMFS wrote:
No modern MiG-29/35 has been equipped with that true 3D nozzle, which BTW was way more complex than the angled 2D used in the Flankers and Su-57. That was a proposal and has not bee developed further or tested in any practical way, so the odds of seeing it in the serial planes is really low.

AFIK the Sukhoi TVC systems are considered to be 3D. They can effect pitch, Roll and yaw. The Russians were able to do this with only 2 planes of nozzle movement by moving them in an X configuration and using FBW software to make it all work. It really a great example of Russian aerospece ingenuity. the wings on the IL-62 are another example of genius design.

Any news / indications of contracts for Mig-35 with VKS or export customers during this MAKS?

owais.usmani wrote:Any news / indications of contracts for Mig-35 with VKS or export customers during this MAKS?

Nope, not a single one same as every other MAKS before (and after)

owais.usmani wrote:Any news / indications of contracts for Mig-35 with VKS or export customers during this MAKS?

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4909039

Russia received two applications for the supply of MiG-35 abroad

The Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation (FSMTC) of Russia has received two applications from foreign partners since 2019 for export deliveries of MiG-35 fighters, said FSMTC Director Dmitry Shugaev. The MiG-35 is a state-of-the-art aviation complex created using the technologies of fifth-generation fighters.

“The MiG-35 is, indeed, the newest multifunctional vehicle equipped with the latest technology. In 2019-2020, the FSMTC of Russia received three requests from foreign customers regarding this aircraft, one of them for display and two for delivery, "Mr. Shugaev told RIA Novosti.

The MiG-35 is designed to destroy air targets, engage mobile and stationary ground and surface targets. The aircraft can use all types of guided missiles, unguided missiles and the latest guided bombs. The fighter's crew consists of one or two people. The maximum take-off weight is 24.5 tons, the maximum speed is 2.1 thousand km per hour.

The head of the military-technical cooperation service also said that within the framework of MAKS-2021, the FSMTC will hold negotiations with delegations from China, India, Myanmar and Belarus, partners from the countries of the Near and Middle East, North Africa. At the same time, he noted that it is too early to talk about specific contracts that can be signed at the air show.

Today, July 20, the MAKS-2021 International Aviation and Space Salon will open in Zhukovsky (Moscow Region). There will also be a meeting on aviation topics with the participation of Russian President Vladimir Putin. To visit the air show, you must provide a QR code or a negative PCR test for coronavirus.

Sounds good right?

Well, unfortunately despite the strategically timed sensationalist headline, the fine-print of the article reads In 2019-2020

So yeah, nada

Mikoyan is simply a design bureau. It is actually Sokol plant that would be in trouble if no real contracts. But I imagine they will be making the MiG-41 and Russian government will guarantee it as they need a replacement for the MiG-31 as it is. Unless Sukhoi gets it and gives the work to Sokol.

Which I believe may end up being that second model they showcased.

Russians often says such things. They confuse orders, inormations asked by a country and rostec officials lies.


Mig-35 is a failure. Just close this thread.

Isos wrote:Russians often says such things. They confuse orders, inormations asked by a country and rostec officials lies.


Mig-35 is a failure. Just close this thread.

MIG = Checkmate
The MIG-35 will hardly want to buy more since yesterday.

But MIG has other suppliers. How is this handhabbed in the future? What happens to Zaslon and other building blocks?

The MiG-35 is entering service right now and is in low rate production.

This new single engine is a proposal from Sukhoi and there is no indication that the Russian military is even interested in a single engined fighter to start with.

Second, there is no evidence this new plane will be cheaper to operate than a MiG-35, and even if it was they have both stealth and non stealth heavy fighters in production, Sukhoi have shown no cheap non stealth version like the MiG-35 so it actually as no competition at the moment.

Countries can buy JF-17 or now SU-75. Why should countries grow up a MIG-35? Generals are also subject to marketing. MIG has no good reputation anymore. The only aircraft What Mig has the MIG-31BM and that must not be exported. Everything else hardly has a future. Either the MIG office finally creates something new or it's over. A MIG-29K support only in the 5th genration. Of this, MIG could sell to the Russian Navy 24 to 48 units and to India 96 units. But there must be something now!

Mig is not an independent company in competition with Sukhoi. It is just a division of UAC. If Mig-35 is phased out, it will not
stop existing. As posted in several threads, Mig has ongoing projects such as the Mig-41. UAC and the Russian government decide
on what development there is. Even though the Su-75 supposedly will never be adopted by the Russian Air Force, it is greenlighted
by the Russian government. UAC makes money off foreign sales but does not sink or swim based on them.

Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:

Isos wrote:Russians often says such things. They confuse orders, inormations asked by a country and rostec officials lies.


Mig-35 is a failure. Just close this thread.

MIG = Checkmate
The MIG-35 will hardly want to buy more since yesterday.

But MIG has other suppliers. How is this handhabbed in the future? What happens to Zaslon and other building blocks?

Checkmate is from sukhoi. It's written on the plane.

Mig managed to succeed some contracts in india and egypt but that's hardly enough to keep them alive. Sukhoi will do the aftersell service for them.

Countries can buy JF-17 or now SU-75.

No they can't, this new single engined plane Sukhoi are developing has not even flown yet so the can't buy it now.

Also it is not going to be as cheap to operate as a non stealth fighter like a MiG-35, so despite its single engine it will be more expensive to own... most countries really don't need stealthy aircraft anyway.... good for invading 3rd world countries, but not particularly useful defending 3rd world countries.

Why should countries grow up a MIG-35? Generals are also subject to marketing. MIG has no good reputation anymore.

Russia doesn't have a good reputation, but there is no question a MiG-35 will kick the arse of a JF-17, and likely would challenge an F-35, while being vastly more affordable than any western alternative aircraft of 4th or 5th generation.

Everything else hardly has a future. Either the MIG office finally creates something new or it's over. A MIG-29K support only in the 5th genration. Of this, MIG could sell to the Russian Navy 24 to 48 units and to India 96 units. But there must be something now!

MiG can't help that India and so many other countries are idiots, the difference between the price for India of a MiG-35 and Rafale on land or at sea is enormous and to even take the Rafale to sea would require much bigger carriers that have catapult launch systems which makes them even more expensive and unlikely.

The F-35 VSTOL version is a dog and the 12 to put on a Gorshkov modified carrier would cost more than the Carrier did, while the F-18, which is actually the only option left would also need so much dedicated gear including catapults to operate from a ship it is not really an option either, and knowing the Indians they will demand local assembly rights which would make even a cheap aircraft moderately expensive anyway.

Mig managed to succeed some contracts in india and egypt but that's hardly enough to keep them alive.

Some?

It got the two critical ones of new carrier based aircraft for the Russian Navy to replace the Su-33 in the role of fighter aircraft, and the Su-28 in the role of carrier landing trainer with the new MiG-29KR, and the VKS job for the light fighter in the form of the MiG-35.

They also have the LMFS programme likely a single and a twin engined option version, the twin engined carrier based model, and a new fighter support drone design... not to mention the MiG-41... sounds like the have plenty to do moving forward.

Sukhoi will do the aftersell service for them.

Piss off... you don't give service contracts to rival companies that is just stupid... Imagine Pepsi Cola co. servicing Coca Cola drinks machines... oh that one has a design fault and doesn't work... we can replace it but they don't make them any more so it would have to be a Pepsi Cola machine and only Pepsi Cola bottles fit in Pepsi Cola machines so you would have to stop having their drink and start drinking our sugar water.

Not going to happen.

Russian aerobatic team "Strizhi" switches from MiG-29 fighters to MiG-35

The Russian aerobatic team "Strizhi" is transferred to the latest MiG-35 fighters. According to the group commander, Colonel Sergei Osyaykin, the group should receive the first fighter jet this year.

According to the colonel, "Swifts" are preparing to switch to a new aircraft, awaiting a command for rearmament. According to the group's plans, the first MiG-35 should arrive this year, but everything depends on the manufacturers. The group is expected to receive nine MiG-35s, i.e. a complete set capable of replacing the entire fleet of currently used MiG-29 fighters.

We are planning to switch to a new aircraft (...) But this no longer depends on us, but on the industry, on the conduct of state tests. Always adopting an aircraft is a long process
- quotes RIA Novosti the words of Osyaykin.

Plans to transfer the Swifts aviation group to the new MiG-35 fighter were announced back in 2017. Then the deputy commander of the Aerospace Forces - Air Force Commander Andrei Yudin said that the Ministry of Defense had made a decision to replace the MiG-29 with the MiG-35, only the end of state tests and the beginning of aircraft purchases were expected. The first deliveries of the MiG-35 were expected in 2018. The group's pilots were alerted to the planned replacement of aircraft.

Aerobatic group "Swifts" is a flight unit created to perform demonstration flights. The group was created in early May 1991 on the basis of the 234th Guards Proskurovsky Aviation Regiment. It includes the best pilots of the Kubinka airbase near Moscow. The group is currently equipped with MiG-29 fighters.

https://topwar-ru.translate.goog/185230-rossijskaja-pilotazhnaja-gruppa-strizhi-perehodit-s-istrebitelej-mig-29-na-mig-35.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=ajax,elem,se

GarryB wrote:The MiG-35 is entering service right now and is in low rate production.

This new single engine is a proposal from Sukhoi and there is no indication that the Russian military is even interested in a single engined fighter to start with.

Second, there is no evidence this new plane will be cheaper to operate than a MiG-35, and even if it was they have both stealth and non stealth heavy fighters in production, Sukhoi have shown no cheap non stealth version like the MiG-35 so it actually as no competition at the moment.

Looks like VKS will have to have MiG-35s in inventory to be an OAK sales catalog. In addition, Russia also need MiG-35s in training units to train foreign pilots from purchasing countries

If VKS only adds 9 aircraft to the acrobatic team, it will be necessary to see where the rest of the 24 that were expected to be purchased in the armament plan until 2027 go, maybe they will go to Astrakhan.
The big question is what happens with the MiG-29 squad of Armenia, which should have been replaced by now, but the stupid new president in Soros's salary, did not allow it.

Atleast Mikoyan did one thing right that sukhoi couldn't and that was showcasing fga-50 or fga-35(3d) radars to India and China at their air shows.