MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

Soviet migs and modern migs are not the same thing.

Thats why i am wondering what got exposed.

So what you are saying is that any plane with good avionics and the right missiles would be good enough... and that holds for any plane whether it has one or two engines so what you are saying is that the MiG-35 is actually a good plane... which is something you normally don't say...

Adding stealth and internal weapons bay would take away its low cost and make it more expensive and less capable in the manouver department... very much like the F-35 is to the F-16. The F-35 was supposed to be a stealthy F-16 but turned out to be a stealthy Buccaneer... probably a nice strike aircraft but not a fighter.

It is the light weight aircraft in a big little pairing... it does not need enormous range, though of course inflight refuelling is a thing... and it does not need massive payloads either because it is a numbers aircraft... in the conflict in Syria and now in Ukraine the aircraft carry a couple of AAMs and a couple of dumb bombs or anti radiation missiles or land attack missiles

Isos wrote:Sure. But it will have a chance against other 5th gen aircraft. Your mig-35 or su-35 is gonna pick up hundreds km away by F-35 or f-22 while they won't see anyone.

Same what is happening with su-35+r-37 against ukro mig-29. The technological difference is so huge that they stand no chance.

If you want to face a stealthy aircraft you better have some stealth capabilities. If not you will get 6 or 7 missiles from 200km away.

according to Lockheed, the effective combat radius of the F-22 is 1 400 kilometres, although that is probably the distance assuming 10min loiter. The actual, effective combat radius (without drop tanks) is around 850 kilometres

Official “range” figures for the F-35 variants are low-balled; often they’re actually shorter than 2x the combat radius of the jet. To understand what I’m talking about, we first need to learn about the F-35’s combat radius:

According to the Pentagon’s annual F-35 Selected Acquisition Reports, the demonstrated air-to-ground combat radius of each F-35 variant is:

F-35A: 669 nautical miles / 1239km
F-35B: 505 nautical miles / 935km
F-35C: 670 nautical miles / 1241km
Like the radius of a circle, a combat radius is the distance that an aircraft can fly away from an airbase and perform some mission before returning. The 1-way range / total distance flown during a sortie (flight) like that is at least double the combat radi.

They have datalinks. One f-35 scan the air the others keep their radars turned off.

With meteors they will be shooting those migs 200km away.

Unless it is a nuclear armed iskander, you would need tens if not one hundred of them to really destroy an airfield with missiles.

Nato air forces don't pack their planes at one spot like russians

Even russian sources give su-35 detection range of some 90km against a f-22. F-22 will have the first look first shoot.

And you believe that those "stealth" aircrafts are invisibile to nebo-m radar (which are also in Crimea) or voronezh radar?

Furthermore the advertised stealth is in perfect condition and with perfect coatings. Many pictures of F22 flying around showed conditions much worse, and that means a degradation of the RCS.

From Berlin to Kiev it is about 1400 km, Ramstein to Kiev even more
Of course bases in Romania or Poland would be closer but do you believe in case of hot war they would be left untouched?

This is something that Russian aircraft can also do, A-50 or Su-35 can scan and send the information to Mig-35 with radars off.

Only if the Migs fly in a straight line and don't do evasive maneuvers. The rocket engine of an air-to-air missile stays on for only a few seconds, after which the missile gradually begins to lose speed, energy and maneuverability, the maximum range of a missile is only practical against slow, large and poorly maneuverable aircraft. Against maneuverable fighters the maximum range of an air-to-air missile will not exceed a few tens of kilometers, except for missiles with massive range like PL-15 and R-37.

It only takes ONE missile to hit the middle of the runway, no aircraft takes off with a crater in the middle of the runway, damage that would take days to repair.

Yes they do. In 2012 USA lost 8 Harriers in Afghanistan in a Taliban attack.

The NEZ of an air-air missile tends to correspond to 1/3 or 1/4 of the maximum range of the missile, it depends on the missile, detected at 90 km the F-22 will already be within the NEZ of the R-37 (400km range ) while the Su-35 would still be outside the NEZ of the AIM-120D (180km range). And the situation would be even worse with A-50 and radars on the ground sharing information with Russian fighters through the datalink.

They have far smaller detection ranges against stealthy f-22 and f-35. With meteors the f-35 will be able to shoot at all of them before they see them on screens.

Numbers of a-50 is quite low. Even less modern a-50U and a-100.
US have far more and more modern AWACS as well as refueling planes. Big advantage for them in numbers.

It's pretty hard to know that an ARH missile is fly at you

Meteor is a very long range missile. That's why they integrated r-37M on su-35.

US are developing a long range missile too and meteor is integrated on the f-35.

ot really. Nato airports have pretty long and large runways and a fighter needs roughly 1000m of it. Hole can be repaired quickly

It's an afghan airport...

Before it comes to 90km to detect the f-22 it will have to face those amraams.

Meteor is a ramjet missile powered all the way. Its NOZ is way greater than actual missiles.

R-37M is very good but if your su-35 can detect the f-22 only 90km away its range is 90km

At this point just use r-77-1 which is lighter and more manoeuvrable.

NOZ isn't as important as you think with active radar missiles. You know there is a fighter radar scaning the airspace but you have no idea it launched a missile at you.

They go up very fast at higher altitudes. Since your radar will look at the f-22 it won't find the missile much higher. You need to move the antenna to scan high to detect the missile in which case you don't see the f-22.

Stealth is important. 4th gen fighter can't compete especially since they also have avionics and electronics few generation older than 5th gen aircraft.

No, the meteor doesn't have the fuel to keep the ramjet engine running all the way, let alone 200km.

Detecting the F-22 at more than 90km means that it can already start attacking,
since a missile with 400km range will certainly have a NEZ with more than 100km.

No, because a missile with a range of 110km like the R-77 will have a NEZ of less than 40km.

Radar, IRST, MAWS can detect enemy missiles from tens of kilometers.

Detecting multiple targets at different altitudes is something that fighter radars have been doing for decades, and with an elevation angle of +/- 45° no fighter with ESA radar will need to be "moving" in order to detect targets at different altitudes

4th generation fighters have numerous variants as they have gone through many modernization processes, Su-35, Mig-35, Gripen E/F, Rafale F4, Typhoon trench 3 all of them have everything that 5th generation has, except stealth, stealth that is counterbalanced by AWACS, anti-stealth radars and datalink making any 4++ fighter, with proper support, able to handle 5th gen fighters.