MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

So, I've promised a reply to GarryB (may call you just Garry in the future?).

It's short as it cover just the point I'm in a real dissonance with him, the rest instead I consider the more or less ok.

GarryB wrote:
It is funny that so many underestimate the MiG, simply because the Flankers have bigger numbers in some areas.

In a real conflict the MiG should be able to operate from smaller runways and while it does not carry the same number of weapon pylons, most operational missions with the Flanker appear to show the Flankers operating with most of their weapon pylons empty anyway.

Serbian MiG-29s with non functional radars not being able to take on HATO have damaged the name of the aircraft forever it seems, and Iraqi efforts have not helped either.

Ironic really because a MiG-35 can carry all the air to air weapons an Su-35 can carry (types, not numbers).

GarryB, is not the numbers of aircraft, it is the fact that you have actually FOUR serial assembly lines working full time on the same base of components and a fifth one scheduled to start before the end of year while we know nothing about the readiness of eventual suppliers of the analogue parts for the MiG-35?

That's it the diriment question, not any musing about the bad reputation of the Serbian lot:

There is such a supply chain ready to deliver ALL the component needed for a three shifts production run of the MiG-35 NOW?

In case the answer should be: yes, in a few months we can start...
Then not any problem on my part,  at the contrary, let's start ASAP. Hop, hop, the troops need them (not the specific model, the numbers).

However if the answer is that they would need still an year or more to begin even with an initial production, a thing that I retain much more probable if not flat out certain...
Well, sorry but the writing is on the wall (and I'm absolutely not happy about it).  

GarryB wrote:Yes, of course, its normal to just throw away a 4+ generation fighters technology because you have decided it is obsolete, I am sure the Americans are making a huge mistake digging up F-15s which are even older and putting new systems and equipment in them and serial producing them because obviously anything that is not stealthy is dead... which is why everyone writes off all European fighters that are not F-35s because obviously everything is not stealthy.

Not being silly here... it is sarcasm.

Yes, Garry, it's an absolutely, normal and quite logic thing to do.
And it's not irony or sarcasm there...I'm deadly serious.

Because We are not talking there about throwing away an already EXISTING 4+ generation plane but about comparing an unsubstantiated claim of the potential intention of building one such item in a not well definite future when you have actually on the other end of the plate the rock solid reality of FOUR assembly line already working on 4++ or 5 gen plane instead and a FIFTH one for another 5+ gen plane scheduled to begin before the end of year.

In case you would however have some both of the one or the other anyway: well, let's dare to say that taking as a meter of comparison the laughting mess that the inventors of such milestones of military mishaps like the Zumwalt, the LCS, the M-777, the San Antonio, the same F-22 have made of themselves ending up into producing (well, actually still not) a plane just to be used exclusively by their own Air National Guard, it's a formidable assist on your part. (irony)

And talking about not existing planes, someone have news about the T-7 Red Hawk, anyway? (sarcasm)

Garry would be just fine.

GarryB, is not the numbers of aircraft, it is the fact that you have actually FOUR serial assembly lines working full time on the same base of components and a fifth one scheduled to start before the end of year while we know nothing about the readiness of eventual suppliers of the analogue parts for the MiG-35?

It is not going to replace the Flankers, it is a smaller lighter cheaper numbers aircraft.

When I call it a numbers aircraft I mean it is cheap to operate, there is no reason for there to be thousands of them or for them to even outnumber other types, but its low costs should make it a better option.

If we look at the Russian Navy, on board their aircraft carrier where space is at a premium it makes more sense to have two aircraft types with different engines and different radar and systems because you get to take advantage of the different qualities of the two types.

If you had all Flankers then you would probably be limited to about 24 planes, plus you would also need 3-4 Su-25 two seat training aircraft to train aircrew with landing and takeoff procedures on an aircraft carrier.

By buying MiG-29Ks, which are likely not cheaper than Su-33s... in fact they are probably more expensive but also more sophisticated because they are more like smaller lighter Su-35s, they get something  precious... numbers.

Having say 12 Su-33s plus 16 MiG-29Ks means they can have a few extra squadrons.

The flight range advantage and the radar performance advantage of the Su-33s means the Su-33 can fly out further and detect targets further away which is ideal because the further away from your ships you fight your battles the safer your ships are, but a decent enemy attack will always push in close and get to a shorter range engagement where a MiG-29K is probably actually better than an Su-33.

Having a mix of aircraft means you get the benefit of both types... range and weapon capacity and radar performance of the larger aircraft, plus the numbers of the smaller aircraft.

It is the same with ATGMs... the BRDM vehicle that carries ATGMs could carry 14 AT-5 missiles, but most of the time it carried 10 AT-5 and 10 smaller AT-4 missiles.

The AT-4 was shorter ranged and had less armour penetration but against lighter targets the AT-4 did the job and took up less room so you could engage more targets.

There is such a supply chain ready to deliver ALL the component needed for a three shifts production run of the MiG-35 NOW?

That is a management call isn't it?

You get an order for an aircraft and you set up 4 lines to produce it with another line to start at the end of the year, I would expect you would also start sourcing all the components and systems you will be needing to make these aircraft.

It is not nails in the coffin... it is the opposite... a rebirth... funding to companies who were likely struggling to sell their products will now have solid orders and will be looking to upgrade their tooling and production capacity to meet the coming needs for their products.

In case the answer should be: yes, in a few months we can start...
Then not any problem on my part,  at the contrary, let's start ASAP. Hop, hop, the troops need them (not the specific model, the numbers

This is not their first rodeo and I would suspect they will be communicating with their subcontractors as to what they will be needing and when so that they can start their production tempo increase too.

Part of the problem is decades with no orders and now they order the MiG-35 and they also order a MiG-UTS single engined trainer aircraft... they could have ordered both 10 years ago and there would not have been a problem...

Of course there isn't a problem now as long as they understand that they can't just snap their fingers and all the new planes they want just appear.

However if the answer is that they would need still an year or more to begin even with an initial production, a thing that I retain much more probable if not flat out certain...
Well, sorry but the writing is on the wall (and I'm absolutely not happy about it).  

I very much doubt they will get any serially produced new MiG-35s into combat in the Ukraine conflict, but I don't think the Russian Air Force are so short sighted as to decide to want to make planes now for the current conflict and discard the intention if the conflict ends.

I am pretty sure the conflict is going to end whether MiG-35s take part or not, I rather think they have seen that they need more light aircraft flying around the place with high resolution radar and modern EO systems to find enemy targets and capture their location in real time and pass that information on to HQ.

I think it is pretty clear that the idea of a computer network makes sense because working together makes them more effective and efficient... like the internet.

But like any systems it is only as good as the current reliable information it contains so rather than operate a few expensive recon platforms it makes more sense to upgrade the sensors on all your platforms and have all your combat units being able to find target information and plot that on a shared map, so the information is fresh.

Having MiG-35s lurking just behind the front lines using their radar and IR sensors to scan deep into enemy territory looking for movement and fortified positions, but also aircraft and missiles and artillery and passing that information in real time down to the troops on the ground and HQs and to friendly artillery and friendly air groups to engage targets as they pop up I think is a good idea moving forward

I think going further and having rather large airships with radar and EO systems floating at 50km altitude looking for targets and monitoring drones and being a signal repeater for radio traffic will improve the ability of the Russian military to find and engage targets on the battlefield.

There have been lots of lessons from this conflict and many can be seen right away like the cages over armoured vehicles because of light drones, but other things take more time to introduce... like the return of Frontal Aviation...

It seems in a modern conflict everything needs to defend itself, but equally everything needs to be able to find targets and pass on that information so those targets can be hit before they disappear.

Yes, Garry, it's an absolutely, normal and quite logic thing to do.
And it's not irony or sarcasm there...I'm deadly serious.

The problem is that people treat the MiG-35 as a scaled down Su-35, so if you have the Su-35 then the MiG-35 is redundant.

What they miss is that the MiG-35 is a bit like the T-64/80... it looks like the T-72 but actually made by different companies from different components... the companies that make the engines and radar for the MiG-35 are not the same companies making money making engines and radar for all the different Flankers.

For a period the Su-35 and Su-30 and Su-34 and Su-57 would all have different engines and different radars etc etc.

Now that is a waste and so the Su-35 and Su-34 and Su-30 having the same engines and the Su-35 and Su-30 having the same radar makes good sense. (The Su-34 is a strike aircraft so it makes sense to have a specialised radar for that).

The thing is that all those engines and radars were made by the same companies.

When we talk about the engines and the radar the MiG-35 uses, the Flanker engines and radar wont fit, and the companies that makes the radar and engines for the MiG is not making ten other engines for ten other aircraft in the Russian AF.

It is rather likely that with the MiG-35 in production will get experimental engines for the new single engined MiG 5th gen fighter we saw the model of and the same with the radar, which means 5th gen engine and 5th gen radar made by companies that don't supply Sukhoi... which means competition and less work pressure for Sukhoi and the companies that support it.

If you can the MiG-35 it just means less work and less revenue for Klimov and less export potential... not that that should matter for the customer in this case... the Russian Air Force... but for Russia it is important to maintain competition as well as cooperation...

Because We are not talking there about throwing away an already EXISTING 4+ generation plane but about comparing an unsubstantiated claim of the potential intention of building one such item in a not well definite future when you have actually on the other end of the plate the rock solid reality of FOUR assembly line already working on 4++ or 5 gen plane instead and a FIFTH one for another 5+ gen plane scheduled to begin before the end of year.

The MiG-35s they would make would not be on Sukhoi assembly lines taking up space and time for Flanker production.

They are not running out of anything at all really... except patience.

In case you would however have some both of the one or the other anyway: well, let's dare to say that taking as a meter of comparison the laughting mess that the inventors of such milestones of military mishaps like the Zumwalt, the LCS, the M-777, the San Antonio, the same F-22 have made of themselves ending up into producing (well, actually still not) a plane just to be used exclusively by their own Air National Guard, it's a formidable assist on your part. (irony)

You can't compare with the Zumwalt or LCS, the MiG-29 was already a good aircraft and with improved everything it should be much better... the MiG-35 is rather more capable and independent than the MiG-29 ever was... the MiG-35 is the aircraft the MiG-29 always should have been.

There were no technical obstacles to carrying R-27T for both GDR and Polish versions of MiG-29.
It was a tactical decision only not to buy those.
Soviets used not only T, but the P version, too.

That was something I was thinking about... the P model is not the SARH model but is actually an anti radiation missile that was intended to be fired at a fighter launcher SARH missiles at you.

For those not following... imagine a flight of Soviet fighters and 100km away there is a flight of American fighters... say a mix of F-15s and F-16s vs MiG-29s.... the F-16s with Sidewinders have to get to within visual range before they can lock and launch their Sidewinders, but the F-15s can launch their Sparrow SARH missiles from rather further out, but the MiG-29 doesn't normally carry the heavy R-27ER SARH missiles and the R-27R has a shorter range and so when they get fired on you would think they were in trouble... but if they knew the F-15s were about they might be carrying an R-27P so when that F-15 spots you and gets a lock on your aircraft with a pencil tracking beam that radiates all over the place and that the Sparrow missile he just launched is going to home in on then that MiG pilot can launch his R-27P missile which is faster than the Sparrow and is also fire and forget because it is homing in on the illumination beam coming from the nose of that F-15.

When the MiG pilot launches that missile he is free to manouver as much as he pleases because that missile is fire and forget... and if it hits its target that sparrow will lose track and not hit anything. Even if the Soviet missile misses the MiG pilot is free to manouver to evade the incoming missile while the F-15 he launched the missile at wont be scanning to see what is coming at him and his radar warning receiver wont detect radar emissions from the incoming missile because it is homing on his radar... no radar emissions coming from the incoming missile.

It is essentially a reverse SARH missile designed to destroy target illumination radar.

HATO expected its F-15s to sit back and pick off most of the Soviet fighters and then let the F-16s go in and destroy the strike and fighter bomber types but the R-73 would have ruined their fun.

I was wondering if the R-27P and R-27EP could be used to engage incoming AMRAAM and Meteor missiles. They are ARH so the radar beam that illuminates the target comes from the missile instead of the launch aircraft but would these missiles notice the difference between shooting down a missile with ARH as opposed to hitting an aircraft providing SARH to a missile it just launched?

They pack a 40kg warhead so they would be effective against some ground based radars too I suspect.

En los 80, en los medios especializados, se hablaba que la dupla soviética Su-30 / MiG-29 había sido creada para competir con la dupla occidental F-15 / F-16.
Ya en esos años, cuando iba llegando información y se podían ver esos aviones desplegados y en visitas de cortesía, se empezó a notar que los modelos soviéticos eran superiores en maniobrabilidad y armamento a los modelos occidentales.

In the 80s, in the specialized media, it was said that the Soviet Su-30/MiG-29 duo had been created to compete with the Western F-15/F-16 duo.
Already in those years, when information was coming and those planes could be seen deployed and on courtesy visits, it began to be noticed that Soviet models were superior in maneuverability and armament to Western models.

Very true, but you could equally say that the F-16 was designed from the very start with a specific level of superiority over the MiG-21 and the F-15 was developed in response to what they believed the MiG-25 would be capable of. In the end it turned out that the MiG-25 was a recon plane and it was actually the MiG-21 and MiG-23 that were the short range point fighter for Frontal Aviation and the long range interceptor for the PVO respectively.

The MiG-29 was a replacement for the MiG-21 essentially and the Su-27 family replaced the MiG-23 in longer ranged interception duties.

BTW it is a forum rule that all posts should be in English because this is an English forum.

I have given members bans for posting in foreign language, but usually only because they did so to post insults or otherwise break other forum rules and used the foreign language to cover their tracks, so no temp ban for you this time.

Please in future post in English or post a translation/summary.

I would add that having lots of modern fighters with modern AESA radars that can look deep into enemy territory is an advantage because those aircraft could be carrying Kh-38s and other standoff weapons they could deliver straight away, which means having more sensors on the battlefield watching the enemy, but also more ready to fire weapons pointing at the enemy too.

Imagine a Kh-38 variant with a LMUR guidance system where the guy in the front seat of the MIG-35 can be flying the plane looking for ground based and air based threats while the guy in the back is using the radar and EO systems to find targets and communicate with ground forces and launching and controlling missiles and drones...

Sure there would be more risk, but also more situational awareness and more ready to fire weapons... we know the Kh-31 is an excellent anti radiation missile and the Kh-35 is a good land attack missile and all the other new weapons they are bringing in to service.

marcellogo wrote:And talking about not existing planes, someone have news about the T-7 Red Hawk, anyway? (sarcasm)

...but this it's just too a funny coincidence. Just received this in my e-mail.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/light-attack-advanced-training/us-air-force-reveals-new-yearlong-delay-t-7?_mc=NL_DR_EDT__20240313&cid=NL_DR_EDT__20240313&elq2=dc8f1f80f67a498689a31c736d3668c0&sp_eh=7944223a92bcbd1e1dccd3a6bdf530a150dd8401a538a8bb5cdf66967cc5da19

GarryB wrote:That is a management call isn't it?

Yes, happy that the point has been recognized and circumscribed for what it is.
Planes actually in serial production pertain all to a same supply chain meaning many of their components are common or almost similar, so adding another model of the same evolutionary line allow you to start from an already existing framework while in  the case of the MiG-35 it is still to ascertain if the supposed advantage it offer are worth the added cost of setting up a completely new one.
Naturally the more time passes, the less such an investment is justified.
So, in the end time will tell.

Planes actually in serial production pertain all to a same supply chain meaning many of their components are common or almost similar, so adding another model of the same evolutionary line allow you to start from an already existing framework while in  the case of the MiG-35 it is still to ascertain if the supposed advantage it offer are worth the added cost of setting up a completely new one.

I can't agree, most of the components in the MiG-35 are designed for the aircraft and are not the same as the similar components used in the larger Flanker series.

The radar and the engines and the IRST, in the case of the MiG-35 it is a two part IRST with one system above the nose and another system under the engine naccelle, and the self defence avionics are all different made by different companies to the ones that make things for Sukhoi.

Now the fuel pumps and actuators might be the same but if you compare them with cars they don't share any body panels and the MFD screens might be made by the one company, or perhaps they are not.

Most of the suppliers for MiG aircraft have not been operating at max capacity, so the serial production of the MiG-35 is a good thing.

Of the subcontractors I would guess most are making other things to earn a crust, but the plans for serial production might involve shifting production for some things or perhaps sharing production. The company that makes MFDs for Sukhois planes probably makes the same displays for most civilian and military aircraft in Russia and the big increase in production in civil aircraft will mean they are going to have to expand production anyway... having a solid contract for MiG-35s means they can go to a bank and say... this is my production capacity at the moment... if you lend to me x number of rubles I can expand to meet this need, and I have contracts to sell these so you know I will be paying you back. Most banks in Russia would agree to that.

You might even find that the company MiG uses to make pumps for their engines (Klimov engines) could help out Sukhoi with pumps for their Saturn engines if the Saturn engine pump supplier is having problems keeping up production.

It is not about stealing work, it is about getting aircraft made and into service.

(ie not profit, but for country.)

The current supply chains are directed at Sukhoi aircraft mostly... Su-24,25,27,30,33,34,35,57 are all in use and have to be supported.

For MiG it is only a few MiG-29, 29KR, and 6 MiG-35s plus MiG-31s... and looking at reviving the MIG-UTS.

If the supply chain is a tree then the Sukhoi portions are growing strong and working at capacity, while the MiG has strength in the MIG-31 but is a tiny bud for the 35 and a cleared patch of weeds for a future jet fighter trainer.

Interesting really that the MiG-UTS is a very light single engined jet trainer and the model shown at the last MAKS was a light single engined 5th gen stealth fighter...

In the 1980s the planned aircraft they were going to make instead of the MiG-29 was the Izd-33 and it looked like this:



You will of course notice in the front on view they were testing different shapes so the left side of the aircraft has a dogtooth horizontal tail and a dogtooth in the LERX, while on the right side a more rounded LERX like an F-18, and no dogtooth in the horizontal tail surface.

This was only for testing and the final aircraft would have one configuration or the other but not both obviously.

Now they are making single engined aircraft again... a trainer and a light 5th gen fighter... and a twin engined light carrier based fighter.

The thing is that twin engined aircraft have the enormous advantage of body lift which improves their flight performance... it wasn't only about twin engined safety.

Naturally the more time passes, the less such an investment is justified.

It always makes sense to invest in new.

One of the things that killed Antonov is probably corruption... they kept skimming money and didn't invest it back into the company with retooling with new equipment and systems and machines. They could barely make prototypes and that was the lure to get contracts for things they were never going to make because the government and the managers would steal the money anyway.

There was a time when the MiG-35 was just a slightly scaled up MiG-29 with canard fins:



But the design changes were quite significant and it is rather easy to tell them apart. The cockpit canopy is the easiest thing to spot, it is a two seater canopy for the new MiGs, whether land 29M/35 or sea 29K. The old MiGs had a single seat canopy with a normal full sized radar or a two seat canopy and a reduced size ranging only radar. The new aircraft, whether the MiG-29M or MiG-29KR or MiG-35 all have two seat cockpits with full spec normal radars... you can have two cockpits fitted or one... if you have one the rear seat can be replaced with extra fuel.

Under the skin the upgrades are significant too.

So, in the end time will tell.

It always does... sadly.

GarryB wrote:

The close up views of the MiG-35 in flight those flaps near where the leading edge root extensions meet the wing are rather interesting and are deployed at low flight speed.

Krueger flaps. Funny thing is my nephew called them "mini canards" that gumnuts. The same fruitcake who hacked into my posts and pretended he was me and went off on that rant about the October war. Kid has issues, but I digress.

GarryB wrote:I rather suspect it acts as a dogtooth to generate vortexes... in this case near the wing root at the edge of the LERX which would energise the air flowing through the vertical tail surfaces....

Makes sense, especially when they seem to automatically deploy at low speeds, kinda like in the beginning of the video when the two jets are trailing the slower cargo plane for the footage.

You can get a great look at them deploying @ minute 5:50 - 5:53 as the aircraft is in the process of slowing down and landing. Further on you get a great look at the massive barndoor flaps on those new & larger wings from the back as it touches down. The placement of the Krueger flaps almost directly opposite of the barndoor flaps and right at the start of the leading-edge flaps makes me think maybe they also enhance faster airflow over the wings. And the combination of the Kruegers, the deployed leading-edge flaps and the barndoor flaps help create a significant amount of lift under the wings. Anything to improve slow speed maneuverability is always a plus. Probably why the MiG-29K lands so beautifully on carriers for the Indian Navy, being equipped with the same exact setup.

I had to double back and check the date of that YouTube video upload you posted because of what the narrator mentions @ min. 6:35 - 8:03. 24 MiG-35s to Egypt in 2024 for $2 billion? And for the first time in over 4 decades that Egypt operates Russian fighter jets? And this was uploaded 3 months ago so it's not mistaken old news. I think the dude might have erroneous information which is too bad if that's the case. That would be a very pleasant surprise to add the MiG-35 to the 46 MiG-29M/M2s although the price of $2 billion is closer to what the EAF was contracted to pay for the 30 Su-35S's making that number for the MiG-35s rather steep for 24 aircraft. And I don't think that as great as the MiG-35 is (even possibly equipped with the Zhuk-AE) would be on par with the Su-35S that was in greater numbers for a similar price. Something is off with that story. He also mentions a possible Malaysia contract.

The biggest issue IMO with the export success of this aircraft is the availability of the Zhuk-AE. Otherwise, it's a MiG-29M/M2 even if they offer the built-in target designator instead of the T-220 pod instead. That's not as big a deal as equipping the fighter with a capable AESA radar which has been that aircraft's Achilles heel since it was brought to the drawing board. It needs to compete with the likes of the later F-16 blocks (50/52 and up) as well as the latest EFT-2000 tranches and Rafales and Gripens etc., even F/A-18 SHs. Not sure why that AESA radar has been such a pain in the ass for Phazotron to develop with MiG Corporation. I believe the AE was for exports and the ME or MA was for aircraft destined to the VVS/VKS. That was the plan since 2007! I think the aircraft's success would've been quite different had they been able to field the radar by 2010/13 or thereabouts.

Maybe now they could offer it with a simpler version of the N036-1-01that's going in the Su-57. If that one is ready and being fitted in the production Su-57s, maybe it's worth offering a similar variation with the MiG-35 if the Zhuk is still being a pain in the ass.

Not sure what MiG is offering for an EW suite, but another great enticing package they could certainly add to the MiG-35 along with an AESA radar to make it much more appealing to perspective air forces is its own version of a good old Russian EW spoofing complex like the Khibiney. A super DRFM system that does the usual faking and creating of fictitious emissions to hide the actual aircraft and fake out incoming missile threats similar to the Su-34/35S's family of pods. I'm guessing they're offering some compatible EW suite along those lines for the MiG-35? I think had they offered something along those lines with the AESA radar, the fate of the MiG-35 might've been much different than what it currently is.

Why don't they use mig-29s to lob UPMK equipped bombs?

diabetus wrote:Why don't they use mig-29s to lob UPMK equipped bombs?

Nothing forbid it, just we have not videos of them doing it.

Probably they prefer to put bomb on heavier Su-34 and use the MiG-29 SMT as escort.

GarryB wrote:
Most of the suppliers for MiG aircraft have not been operating at max capacity, so the serial production of the MiG-35 is a good thing.

but now they are. There is  wartime. Not sure why would you insist in diversion of production capacity  to new not tested model of an old upgraded airframe?
Su-30/Su-35 are being mass and proven in combat conditions.


 There's no mass production of MiG-35. How many was made last 5 years? 6?8?. There's no way you can find train people to make it in  short notice. This costs money and time which you would need to keep production of other fighters.

In short you have the question either MiG-35 or Su's.

GB wrote:
I think the large drone experience of this conflict with the Turkish drones etc shows that in an actual war zone they are too vulnerable to be useful.

Not big but this type application and parameters. Su-70 is much bigger yet you cannot say its obsolete. Besider large drones are good for many things including glide bombing. perhaps smaller bombs like 100-250 kg but many drones can attack form different directions.


CAS airplanes in regular war is also obsolete approach. Drones are the future though.

If they want more fighters and the rumours are true that they are going to serial produce the MiG-35 then that makes a lot of sense... it will have 90% the capabilities of the Su-35 over shorter flight distances (though not if they introduce inflight refuelling aircraft), but with a serious reduction in operational costs.

according to thsi logic why not to reinstate MiG-23/27 production? with new radars... Noone produce old aircraft for the future. Especially that in 10-15 years you likely will have unmanned fighters. Cheaper in production and maintenance.

GB wrote:

So, in the end time will tell.

It always does... sadly.

Here we can definitelly agree

That would be a very pleasant surprise to add the MiG-35 to the 46 MiG-29M/M2s although the price of $2 billion is closer to what the EAF was contracted to pay for the 30 Su-35S's making that number for the MiG-35s rather steep for 24 aircraft.

AESA radars are not cheap, and you get what you pay for. If you compared the MiG-35 price with an AESA radar with a Su-35 price if the Su-35 was fitted with an AESA radar then the difference would be rather more marked and clearer.

The thing is that the MiG-35 still makes sense because its operational costs are much lower yet for most tasks it can perform the same mission.

When operating with India the US pilots pointed out that the upgraded MiG-21 was much smaller than the Flankers which made it more difficult to see and to track visually... a smaller sized aircraft has some advantages together with the obvious disadvantages of reduced endurance and payload capacity and flight range etc etc.

But then with inflight refuelling capability its range can be anything you need with the right planning.

And I don't think that as great as the MiG-35 is (even possibly equipped with the Zhuk-AE) would be on par with the Su-35S that was in greater numbers for a similar price. Something is off with that story. He also mentions a possible Malaysia contract.

An AESA radar and 3d thrust vectoring jet engines... it would be a rather capable fighter aircraft.

Not sure why that AESA radar has been such a pain in the ass for Phazotron to develop with MiG Corporation. I believe the AE was for exports and the ME or MA was for aircraft destined to the VVS/VKS. That was the plan since 2007! I think the aircraft's success would've been quite different had they been able to field the radar by 2010/13 or thereabouts.

The problem is that AESA radars are production oriented so if no one orders them then they essentially remain hand made radar, which limits their design improvement potential, maximising duds from lack of experience in manufacturing them in large volumes and limits their potential.

Maybe now they could offer it with a simpler version of the N036-1-01that's going in the Su-57. If that one is ready and being fitted in the production Su-57s, maybe it's worth offering a similar variation with the MiG-35 if the Zhuk is still being a pain in the ass.

That would be like Asking Toyota if they wouldn't mind fitting Mazda engines to their cars because their customers already have some Mazdas and like them.

MiG works with a different radar company from the radar company that works with Sukhoi.

MiG-35 contracts means money to that radar company... they wont be very happy about being told we got the contract but we are selling you out and using another companies radar instead cause it is just easier and we don't want to spend the money it takes to get your radar, which you worked your arse off to an operational level.

Not sure what MiG is offering for an EW suite, but another great enticing package they could certainly add to the MiG-35 along with an AESA radar to make it much more appealing to perspective air forces is its own version of a good old Russian EW spoofing complex like the Khibiney.

AFAIK they have a different company that that which Sukhoi uses... their system might be better or it might be worse. Based on the costs I would say it might be better because the MiG-35 is not a cheap plane to buy... if you want that then you are supposed to buy the MiG-29M and then in 5 years time when the expensive stuff in the MiG-35 is affordable then you can upgrade your MiG-29Ms to MiG-35 level.

Of course by then the MiG-35 will have improved to a MiG-35M level and be more expensive but also better.

I think had they offered something along those lines with the AESA radar, the fate of the MiG-35 might've been much different than what it currently is.

The fate of the MiG-35 is that they seem to be going to buy it.

More expensive to buy than the MiG-29M but also more capable... and cheaper to run than the larger heavier Sukhois.

That is its sales pitch.

Why don't they use mig-29s to lob UPMK equipped bombs?

Ideally they should because the MiG-29 can carry most of the bombs they are using and are cheaper to operate so getting them airborne from shorter strips and flying an approach to the frontline and lofting these glide kit equipped dumb bombs with target locations programmed in to them and then returning to base to refuel and rearm does not require 5th gen stealth and 4,000km flight radius... you can carry an R-77 and R-74 under one wing an a Kh-31 and another R-74 under the other wing just in case something lights you up but the whole point of the glide kits is to be able to release the weapons outside the range of enemy air defences.

They are trying to get rid of mig-29smt. Don't expect any meaningful work for them.

If they are that stupid then they are that stupid. You don't need a 24 ton Flanker do release dumb bombs attached to glide kits... the only cheaper way to do it might be with Su-25s in fact, but the MiG can climb higher and fly faster meaning the glide kits will reach further and make the aircraft using the weapons safer...

but now they are. There is wartime. Not sure why would you insist in diversion of production capacity to new not tested model of an old upgraded airframe?

So what are you saying... Klimov is making engines for Flankers and has no capacity to make RD-33s for new MiGs?

Klimov will have production facilities ready to make RD-33 engines for MiG-35s... they have production facilities to make the modified versions the Chinese buy for their single engine fighter that uses modified RD-33 engines... I am sure they will understand if there are delays in the next year or two in that regard.

The production capacity for MiG-35 parts wont be doing anything else because the parts the MiG-35 uses are not used on any other aircraft currently in serial production in Russia.

Conversely the Su-30 and Su-35 and to a lessor extent the Su-34 are all going to be using the same engines and the former two the same most things to cut down on the different radars and engines and systems they are making, so adding more Su-35 orders will put a strain on Su-30 and Su-35 delivery.

Su-30/Su-35 are being mass and proven in combat conditions.

Both types have been shot down... most likely by friendly fire most of the time, but I have not heard of any Su-57s or MiG-35s being shot down.

The heavy Flankers have a higher operational cost, while many of their missions don't need aircraft that big and heavy to execute them. In fact in many of their missions the MiG-35 is smaller and lighter and does the job cheaper.

There's no mass production of MiG-35. How many was made last 5 years? 6?8?. There's no way you can find train people to make it in short notice. This costs money and time which you would need to keep production of other fighters.

When the order was for 6 aircraft do you think they had a skeleton crew working the production line?

One or two guys running the whole show?

Every design goes from test serial production to increased serial production so they wont need to hire thousands of people... they just need to put more aircraft through the existing production line.

In short you have the question either MiG-35 or Su's.

Bullshit. The production line that made the MiG-35s probably also made the MiG-29Ks for the Russian Navy and the Indian Navy before that... it has never and will never make Flankers of any type because it is not a Sukhoi factory.

The costs of converting it to making Flankers would be very close to the costs of making a new factory.

MiG are supposed to be working on a new single engined training aircraft MiG-UTS, and also a single engined 5th gen light fighter. With no production facilities are you going to start sending Su-35s to training units because obviously what better aircraft to step from a Yak-52 or Yak-152 trainer to a Yak-130 advanced trainer than an Su-35 that we have to use for everything...

Su-70 is much bigger yet you cannot say its obsolete.

The easy to shoot down drones are the MALE and HALE, and it is not so much the altitude they operate at as the fact that they are long endurance, which makes them look rather like glider aircraft... which are easy to shoot down and not particularly fast or manouverable.

Besider large drones are good for many things including glide bombing. perhaps smaller bombs like 100-250 kg but many drones can attack form different directions.

The video footage I am seeing in Ukraine is a recon drone operating at altitude and looking for targets for suicide drones to attack or for artillery to strike.

Larger drones carrying bombs in the 100kg and 250kg weight range are going to be huge and hard to hide... and more importantly horribly vulnerable to Russian air defence systems like Pantsir and BUK and TOR.

CAS airplanes in regular war is also obsolete approach. Drones are the future though.

The lethality of air defence systems means that could be true, but CAS platforms will just adapt. Longer ranged sensors in radar and optical frequencies to find targets... possibly from very high altitudes, with the attack method being a combination of suicide drones, artillery, attack helicopters, or attack aircraft loitering behind friendly lines ready to climb and accelerate and release gliding weapons to hit the targets identified.

But any high altitude recon platform taking on that role will be a focus for enemy attack so air defence needs to cover such platforms whether they are specialised aircraft operating in the 20-30km altitude like an M-55, or some sort of airship operating higher.

according to thsi logic why not to reinstate MiG-23/27 production? with new radars... Noone produce old aircraft for the future.

US is putting F-15 back into production and is considering the same with the F-16... they are military geniuses... how dare you call them nobody.

The thing is that the MiG-29/35 shape was superior to the MiG-23/27 and allowed a supersonic aircraft to operate from short rough airstrips with a fixed and simpler wing design.

Especially that in 10-15 years you likely will have unmanned fighters.

Still to be convinced about that... and how many air forces around the world have unmanned fighters just at this moment.

Although technically the air to air missile and surface to air missile have always been anti aircraft unmanned drones.

Cheaper in production and maintenance.

That doesn't matter if it can't get the job done.

The Bakraytaker or whatever it is called was effective in some conflicts where it could fly and look for targets that it could attack or direct other drones to attack.

In fact I would say it would be enormously successful against most western countries because their solution would be launching an aircraft to try to shoot it down... if you loaded stingers or sidewinders on the things you might get a few air kills against an enemy aircraft.

The point is that against a western enemy it would be too difficult for MANPADS and they really generally don't have much in the range of air defence systems that could kill it that don't cost millions and millions of dollars and as we have seen are in stock in terribly small numbers.

In that situation it would be excellent.

Against Russians there are a wide range of air defence systems that could take it out easily... TOR, Tunguska, Pantsir, and BUK all leap to mind as very suitable systems and even systems like Kornet-EM can hit targets up to 10km. The new SOSNA is on the way and of course the new 2S38 57mm gun system would also be a very useful system against such drones too. Even attack helicopters would be a solution... and probably the best solution for the western forces too.

The Serbs dealt with western drones by flying along side them with PK machine guns hanging out the side of helicopters like Hips and Hinds and shooting them down with a few rounds of 308.

GarryB wrote:

They are trying to get rid of mig-29smt. Don't expect any meaningful work for them.

If they are that stupid then they are that stupid. You don't need a 24 ton Flanker do release dumb bombs attached to glide kits... the only cheaper way to do it might be with Su-25s in fact, but the MiG can climb higher and fly faster meaning the glide kits will reach further and make the aircraft using the weapons safer...

you don't seem to understand the difference - Russians use what they got. To use a long as it's fit. T-62 or Su-25. No-one is going invest in su-25 afterwards. Neither in T-62. When T-62/Mig-29 life ends they will be phased out.

but now they are. There is  wartime. Not sure why would you insist in diversion of production capacity  to new not tested model of an old upgraded airframe?

So what are you saying... Klimov is making engines for Flankers and has no capacity to make RD-33s for new MiGs?

Well you can say make 100 engines so either 100 is for flakers or you split. You don't magically create extra production capacity and find extra skilled workers/engineers. (some resources go to retool manufacturing lines so the process is even more slowed down)

Klimov will have production facilities ready to make RD-33 engines for MiG-35s...

MiG-35? in whooping number of 6 made?

Conversely the Su-30 and Su-35 and to a lessor extent the Su-34 are all going to be using the same engines and the former two the same most things to cut down on the different radars and engines and systems they are making, so adding more Su-35 orders will put a strain on Su-30 and Su-35 delivery.

well looks like RuAF didn listen to you and keep ordering Su-27 derivatives.

Su-30/Su-35 are being mass and proven in combat conditions.

Both types have been shot down... most likely by friendly fire most of the time, but I have not heard of any Su-57s or MiG-35s being shot down.

Because they dont fly there. Same with F-16

The heavy Flankers have a higher operational cost, while many of their missions don't need aircraft that big and heavy to execute them. In fact in many of their missions the MiG-35 is smaller and lighter and does the job cheaper.

yep, MiG-21 is even more cheaper yet none uses it anymore. Russian AF seem to be investing in 3 platforms: Su-57/75 and S-70. The rest will be gradually phased out when lifetime is going to end.
There's nothing wrong with MiG-35 besides its legacy product not any future one.

There's no mass production of MiG-35. How many was made last 5 years? 6?8?. There's no way you can find train people to make it in  short notice. This costs money and time which you would need to keep production of other fighters.

When the order was for 6 aircraft do you think they had a skeleton crew working the production line?

One or two guys running the whole show?

in 10 years whooping 6? whoa.

Please note There are no plans ordering MiGs anymore. Only Sukhois.

In short you have the question either MiG-35 or Su's.

Bullshit. The production line that made the MiG-35s probably also made the MiG-29Ks for the Russian Navy and the Indian Navy before that... it has never and will never make Flankers of any type because it is not a Sukhoi factory.

During 19 years of MiG-29k there were 80 made (in Russian wiki 65) so max 4 per year. + 34 MiG SMT (Algier) +/6 MiG-35 .

It seems that each Su producing factory is doing 3-4 per month to compare scale.

MiG are supposed to be working on a new single engined training aircraft MiG-UTS, and also a single engined 5th gen light fighter.

I have heard about that but i guess we need to wait to check if plans weren't corrected by war.

Besider large drones are good for many things including glide bombing. perhaps smaller bombs like 100-250 kg but many drones can attack form different directions.

The video footage I am seeing in Ukraine is a recon drone operating at altitude and looking for targets for suicide drones to attack or for artillery to strike.

Larger drones carrying bombs in the 100kg and 250kg weight range are going to be huge and hard to hide... and more importantly horribly vulnerable to Russian air defence systems like Pantsir and BUK and TOR.

Same as Sukhois with gliding bombs, what's the difference in platform if the bomb is going to glide? only shooting drone is not costing you a pilot.

BTW so you say Gerans are not getting to the location? they are loud, largew and flying low.

CAS airplanes in regular war is also obsolete approach. Drones are the future though.

The lethality of air defence systems means that could be true, but CAS platforms will just adapt.

They definitely will, they called drones. Please show me one AF planning to build manned cCAS

according to thsi logic why not to reinstate MiG-23/27 production? with new radars... Noone produce old aircraft for the future.

US is putting F-15 back into production and is considering the same with the F-16... they are military geniuses... how dare you call them nobody.

F-16 lines were reopened only because of export orders. Never heard about new F-16 for USAF.
F-15 is like 120 units since 2010s? so how many F-15 was withdrawn for active service? BTW F15 is counterpart of Su-30/35 not MiG-29s

Especially that in 10-15 years you likely will have unmanned fighters.

Still to be convinced about that... and how many air forces around the world have unmanned fighters just at this moment.
Although technically the air to air missile and surface to air missile have always been anti aircraft unmanned drones.

You have right not to be convinced but i wasn't talking about the past -like legacy fighters MiG-35/Su-35 . Currently both Russia and the US work on sidekick fighters. 6th gen fighter is going to be "optionally manned" .

GB wrote:
The Bakraytaker or whatever it is called was effective in some conflicts where it could fly and look for targets that it could attack or direct other drones to attack.
[]
In that situation it would be excellent.

every weapon is build for specific task . Russia also have Orions/Altius'es for a reason. Not for frontal attack on IRIS or NSAMS system though. Gerans and Lancets seem to work pretty well.

GB wrote:
The Serbs dealt with western drones by flying along side them with PK machine guns hanging out the side of helicopters like Hips and Hinds and shooting them down with a few rounds of 308

sure but it was a quarter of century ago. And it has little to do with the future wars.

you don't seem to understand the difference - Russians use what they got. To use a long as it's fit.

I understand just fine. They have lots of tanks in storage and unless they convert them into robots or give them to allies who already operate such vehicles so such vehicles makes more sense than more modern types they are not keeping them like a museum keeps them.

They are kept to be used and the opportunity to use them has presented itself.

On a modern front line with ATGMs and Mines and drones and of course artillery a modern tank is not amazingly different from the latest T-14 to the oldest Leopard 1. All are mobile gun platforms that support friendly forces where they use their heavy armour and large gun and mobility to move around the battlefield supporting troop movements.

The actual difference between an upgraded T-62 with add on armour and thermals and cage armour and a T-14 is not as big as most people might think... the difference in price and costs is actually rather significant.

Most enemy weapons that will penetrate a T-62 from the side will probably also penetrate any other tank from the side. Side and rear and top and belly armour does not actually vary that much from tank to tank... certainly not as much as cost would suggest. Leopard 2 tanks are supposed to be amazing but seem to have less roof armour than your average BMP.

Using what you have is about getting rid of old crap when it is good enough to get the job done... you stored it because you thought it would be useful someday, well for much of the stuff that time is now.

In terms of the MiG-29SMT it is an odd aircraft that is not the same as the other aircraft they have in service so getting rid of them for commonality would make sense.

Of course we hear claims they are trying to get rid of them but we don't hear that from the Air Force itself as an official policy... by the same token they are also trying to get rid of original model Su-27P fighters with various upgrades and of course the newer Su-35/30 aircraft.

The SMT was bought because it was cheap and already partly paid for... much like the Russian Navy never had money for new carrier aircraft, but when India bought some MiG-29KRs then with the production line set up the Russian Navy put an order in where they didn't have to pay for a production line to be set up and production started.

T-62 or Su-25. No-one is going invest in su-25 afterwards. Neither in T-62. When T-62/Mig-29 life ends they will be phased out.

T-62s and Su-25s are also assets that continue to have upgrade packages developed for them so in the future when they are used they will be effective.

The operational costs of Su-25s will be rather less than the operational costs of an Su-35 delivering the same dumb bombs with guidance glide kits attached, and the target wont know how many thousands of dollars were spent getting those bombs delivered to the front line targets.

Well you can say make 100 engines so either 100 is for flakers or you split. You don't magically create extra production capacity and find extra skilled workers/engineers. (some resources go to retool manufacturing lines so the process is even more slowed down)

Klimov will make the engines that are paid for and are making RD-33s for export under the designation RD-93 for Chinese single engined fighters they are making for export and they will be making rather more profit on those engined than any RD-33 they will be making for Russian AF aircraft because they are allowed 30% profit on export products and 4-5% profit on products for the Russian military.

It is their patriotic duty to make weapons for the motherland or fatherland and they will work as hard to make them for Russian pilots destroying nazis in the Ukraine as they will export engines ending up being used by Pakistan or China or any other country that ends up using them.

MiG-35? in whooping number of 6 made?

The first order for most products is modest while you are testing them and seeing what they can or cannot do and how much they cost to operate.

Their could be a follow up order for 24 or 36 or 72 or 96 aircraft, or they could order 250.

We don't know what their plans are, but the role of the MiG-35 is cheap but modern and sophisticated numbers aircraft you can deploy around your country to defend the urbanised area with lots of airfields around the place where they can operate from remote strips of motorway if their airfields are attacked.

A very useful aircraft unlike the F-16s which the Ukraine are likely to struggle to use properly because they are so fragile and fussy.

well looks like RuAF didn listen to you and keep ordering Su-27 derivatives.

It made sense at the time because it was the best use of limited funds... when you only have an airfleet of maybe 600-800 fighters then making them capable heavy fighters makes sense, but when you plan to have over 1,000 fighters then having all big heavy expensive to operate aircraft becomes a burden and smaller lighter numbers aircraft start to make sense... which is what is happening now.

I don't know what they are thinking and I am not suggesting they will make thousands of MiG-35s, but a few hundred together with S-70 type wingman drones will boost their numbers of air defence fighters that will better be able to deal with swarm attacks trying to penetrate their air defences by presenting more targets than they can deal with.

Having Su-35s and Su-30s and S-70s in numbers is good but it is not affordable to have thousands of them, so the MiG-35 and Wingman drones... MiG also have their own wingman drone type too which they will likely introduce with their new light single engined stealth fighter and carrier twin engined light fighter.

Both of which will enable them to boost numbers without blowing out the defence budget on purchases and operational costs.

Because they dont fly there. Same with F-16

My understanding is that the MiG-35s have been tested.

Talk of actually putting them in production would hardly make sense if they didn't try the MiG-35s over Ukraine to see how they went.

An aircraft too precious to lose is too precious to use and is essentially useless.

If they are putting it into serial production I suspect they tested it and were happy with its performance and its costs.

Their might be some things that need working out... every new aircraft has niggles and issues that need to work out before you start serial production and commit to the type... that is why you only make 6 and not 600...

yep, MiG-21 is even more cheaper yet none uses it anymore. Russian AF seem to be investing in 3 platforms:

They have said they are putting MiG-35s into production which suggests they are investing in more than 3 platforms... and the MiG-31 and its replacement will be on that list too.

in 10 years whooping 6? whoa.

The current aircraft likely would not be able to be produced 10 years ago. Lots of new technology that had to be developed and perfected and put into production... prototype and serial production don't just happen.

It seems that each Su producing factory is doing 3-4 per month to compare scale.

What are you trying to say? They can only buy and build Sukhois? Those sukhoi factories will be working to capacity, it makes obvious sense for MiG factories to start producing aircraft too.

They have already ordered MiG-UTS trainers...

I have heard about that but i guess we need to wait to check if plans weren't corrected by war.

I would think the war cutting off any chance of keeping L39s flying would make MiG-UTS even more urgent rather than less urgent.

Same as Sukhois with gliding bombs, what's the difference in platform if the bomb is going to glide? only shooting drone is not costing you a pilot.

Because a drone generally does not have afterburners and the ability to climb to 12km altitude in a minute or two and then accelerate to supersonic speeds and release a glide bomb towards a target 70km away and hit it. The drone will likely get to 6km altitude and at 250km/h will have to close much closer than 70km to release their glide bomb if they want a chance to hit it.

Possibly cheaper, using less fuel, but a MiG-35 could carry four or more 250kg or 500kg glide bombs per flight and also carry self defence missiles.

BTW so you say Gerans are not getting to the location? they are loud, largew and flying low.

Of course they are but a Geran hitting a tank factory with a 30kg HE warhead is not going to level the entire factory... in fact tanks being tanks most of them could probably be dragged out and repaired no matter what damage they get except the one or two the drone actually lands on.

Please show me one AF planning to build manned cCAS

Show me one AF that has CAS that has cancelled their CAS aircraft and scrapped them.

Russia continues to upgrade its helicopters which seem to be doing rather well.

What they do with their Su-25s remains to be seen, but sensors and equipment fitted to helicopters is getting more advanced and sophisticated and long ranged and cooperation with drones (recon and suicide) seems to be increasing too.

Some of the lessons from this conflict can be applied very quickly like cage armour over the top of tank turrets... other technology and equipment like jammers and anti drone stuff is going to take longer.

New generation radar and EO for the standoff detection of targets on the battlefield is getting better all the time and I suspect that sooner or later they will move it from the CAS fighter to the high ground... airships at 50km altitude... where most air defence systems would struggle in that thin air.

F-16 lines were reopened only because of export orders. Never heard about new F-16 for USAF.

When they put the 250 million per aircraft F-15 back into production because the `120 million per aircraft F-35 was not getting the job done I rather suspect they thought the real solution is what it should have been in the first place. A stealthy F-16 to replace the F-35.

The F-35 programme was basically screwed from the start by the requirement to replace the Harrier... without that bullshit the F-35 could have had rather more internal volume for weapons and fuel and still be agile and cheaper... but they screwed it up.

They wanted a stealthy F-16 that everyone could buy which would make it cheap, but they ended up with a stealthy buccaneer... and don't get me wrong, I like the Bucc... with a bucket of instant sunshine under each wing at low altitude it was faster and longer ranged than the F-16 in the same loadout... and it can operate from aircraft carriers too... but it is not a fighter.

In fact I think there is video on YT in a flight simulator where a Bucc is flying low and fast as it was designed for and western aircraft could not chase it down and kill it... with guns.

BTW F15 is counterpart of Su-30/35 not MiG-29s

If Russia put the MiG-23 and MiG-27 back into serial production for front line service you would think that meant the MiG-29 and Su-27 and subsequent models of these aircraft were failures.

F-15 going back into production is a desperate measure because the F-22 is shit and the F-35 is shit and it is quicker to put the F-15 back into production than it will take to develop a whole new aircraft design to fix the F-22 and F-35 are shit problems.

It is the same with the Sidewinder... the AA-1 was not a great missile and the design changes they would need to make when looking at the Sidewinder design it just made more sense to copy it while they are changing their entire air to air missile design philosophy to create new modular weapons like the Sidewinder.

It was good for an export missile but they didn't keep using it themselves for very long.

You have right not to be convinced but i wasn't talking about the past -like legacy fighters MiG-35/Su-35 . Currently both Russia and the US work on sidekick fighters. 6th gen fighter is going to be "optionally manned" .

Wingman fighters support manned fighters and boost numbers. They provide an extra set of sensors and some extra weapons that can be used when useful and either sent into danger or used up and sent back to base to rearm and refuel like you might use a wingman.

every weapon is build for specific task . Russia also have Orions/Altius'es for a reason.

We were told they would be amazing game changers and would destroy Russian air defences the way the Israelis ripped through Arab forces air defences with drones and air power... it was going to be how HATO beats Russia so easily and why they think they can dictate terms even now.

sure but it was a quarter of century ago. And it has little to do with the future wars.

In the Ukraine conflict thread footage of crew in a Hind or perhaps Hip with AK rifles fitted with suppressors opening the side door and shooting at and shooting down drones has been posted.

The Russians have already stated that the Mi-28NM has a specific role against drones because of its advanced optics and radar, its flight speed and mobility, enabling it to take on and take down enemy drones.

In the naval arena the best weapon against drone attacks seems to be helicopters that can chase down drones on the water or in the air and match speed and fire rockets and cannon and machine gun fire to bring down these threats.

In fact I mentioned a couple of times that light helicopters like the attack version of the Ansat or the Ka-226 with a module with fuel and belted ammo and stub wings with rocket pods and cannon and machine guns would be an ideal platform for dealing with some drones... including naval surface drones.

Their speed and range means they can go out and meet enemy drone swarms while they are a distance from the ships they are attacking and they can be shot down from a safe distance and destroyed.

I agree mig-29smt can also do the job but overall it lacks air to air capabilities against nato planes.

I wonder how amazing those HATO planes actually are... I mean if they were amazing then they could have just sent one or two to Ukraine to clean up the Russians in a few days.

The F-16 originally was armed only with Sidewinders because its was a bomb truck day fighter... the MiG-29SMTs would be the same... they would defend themselves but would be operating under Su-35s providing top cover for their activities... as such the performance of the MiG-29SMTs in air to air would not matter a whole lot.

Having said that the MiG-29SMTs can carry the entire range of Russian and Soviet modern air to air missiles... just like the Su-35 so anything the Su-35 can use the MiG-29SMT can also use.

Su-30 with modernization has a good chance against them and can release bombs too.

Costing several times more doing the same job...

Mig needs to get ride of the mig-29 basis family as a whole.

MiG has invested a lot of time and money and effort in that platform and now it has reached perfection and potential serial production your expert advice is to cancel it and start again?

They need to take that mig-94 single engine stealth jet they presented and go ahead with it.

Not sure what they will call that new single engined 5th gen design but it wont be MiG-94.

The numbers for fighters and fighter bombers are always odd numbers and normally follow a sequence, they might call it MiG-37 or MiG-39, while the new MiG-31 replacement will likely be called MiG-41 in the same way that the Su-24 has been replaced by the Su-34 based on the Su-27 airframe.

The new single engined 5th gen fighter they are developing might not achieve the goals they set for it initially, which means it might start out more expensive than they anticipate (but I doubt it), and the Russian military has never made any declaration about wanting or needing an all stealth air fleet.

Unless they have magic stealth coatings that are free odds are the MiG-35 will still have lower operational costs.

Rest of their project needs to go to the bin because the MoD invested in other similar projects. This thing if cheap and reliable would seel like the mig-21.

But that is the thing... it might not be for export... export customers might only get the option of Su-57 or Su-75 in specialised export models .

The wingman drone that was shown with it could be part of the deal and also operate with MiG-35 as well... production of MiG-35s will allow them to further develop their next gen technology they will be putting into the new single (Air Force) twin engined (Navy) and drone (Air Force and Navy) designs.

The MiG-35 has further growth potential using 5th gen radar and eventually engines and systems just as the Su-35 has the same potential with the radar and engines from the Su-57.

Why cancel something now that can not only quickly boost fighter numbers, but also act as a testing platform for new developments for new types yet to fly.

I would add those mig-21smt should be sold to a country that would piss off the US like Iran or north korea.

I would say licence production of MiG-29Ms at the very least would be a good start to help their aircraft industry and aircraft design potential.

Affordable numbers aircraft would be a real challenge for the west and her bitches... especially when supported by a decent air defence network.

Look at the pictures. Big one is 49 and small one is 94. Its name should be mig-94. Like su-57 and su-75.

I wouldn't read too much in to that. The first Flanker was the T-10 and when the design was revised it became the T-10M... guess what number it had on it?

And it wasn't 27 for Su-27...

It was 10.

Many big companies went bankrupt by investing in dumb ideas or not modernizing thrir products. Mig-29 is shit today, everyone knows it and they are not putting any big effort to modernize it.

That is funny because an American guy keeps phoning my home and my work trying to buy my MiG-29s for a friend of his in Kiev... the definition of shit today would be the F-16s they are going to be giving Kiev in the next few months or year because while it is no better than a MiG-29 it will cost them 40 times more and it wont operate from strips of motorway... and will probably need air conditioned hangars.

MiG has developed a complete range of upgrade options that the Russian military has not adopted.

The economic condition of the Russian AF I can understand their decision, but now they need numbers because in a modern 4++ and 5th gen fighter, numbers means sensors and weapon platforms in the field.

Many years ago you had recon units and forces finding targets and then you planned attacks using your military forces... these days your military forces have sensors and equipment as powerful or more so than your recon forces... a MiG-35 is like an armed drone... its IIR sensors for air and ground targets along with its avionics suite for detecting enemy emissions and of course its AESA radar is 1,000 times better than anything fitted to an unmanned drone and to make things even better the MiG-35 is armed so it can pass information to HQ and other platforms in the air and on the ground and if need be it can attack the most critical targets itself.

But of course you need something that is AFFORDABLE to operate round the clock and the Flankers are just too expensive to keep operating like that.

Mig-35 doesn't even come with its aesa.

If it does not have an AESA then why only make 6... if it does not have an AESA fitted then it would be much cheaper, though it would also be less capable.

Looking how sukhois are getting destroyed by Patriots and old soviet system I doubt a su-35 could protect a shitty mig-29 while protecting itself against Meteor and Amraam launched by f-22 and f-35 that enjoy a clear stealth advantage

War in Syria and war in the Ukraine and these wonder planes are nowhere to be seen... because they are not there.

Israeli F-35s wont even fly into Syrian airspace.

There is no evidence AMRAAM has scored a kill in Ukraine, and we don't know how many kills are occurring and who is scoring those kills.

Certainly the R-37M seems to be successful.... and the MiG-35 can use the R-37M... which outranges AMRAAM and Meteor.

Is Meteor even in service?

How many kills has it had?

In terms of number they are also low on them. They would loose ten to air defence, 10 to air to air and ten to cruise missile attacks and thry would already loose 30% of their fleet.

Why would they lose any at all... Russian air defence would reach deep into HATO airspace and current Russian missiles seem able to penetrate HATO air defences with ease to destroy the handful of western HQs and Comms centres and air fields and of course SAM sites.

Kiev is out of SAMs... how many does HATO have left?

That mig-94 is a must have for them and a must do for mig.

Neither Russian single engined 5th gen fighter has flown yet, they wont be operational and in serial production for ten years... in the mean time making MiG-35s makes good sense because it adds modern capable fighters, and it provides airframes that systems and equipment being developed for the new single engined fighter can deploy as an upgrade during its operational life.

I understand some people on here are children and a tank destroyed or a ship sunk or an aircraft shot down is the end of the world and the Russian military have to be all fired and publicly flogged for their crimes against the Russian people, but the reality is that shit happens in war... look at it, try to learn from it... try to anticipate what the enemy might do and how you could prevent that from happening, but you have to be realistic.

Building 10,000 super hardened concrete shelters for your planes is a stupid waste of time and money when you are already spending money on air defences and anti drone systems.

Having said that some hangar facilities would make sense.

You can talk all day about western equipement but the ukro war showed that even with very limited deliveries they are deadly to Russians.

Limited deliveries... you sent everything you had and they still ask for more... and now they have learned to use drones and to hunt mobile systems the Russian Military of today is 100 times more dangerous than the Russian military two years ago... well done... you have cut yourself off from cheap energy and created an enemy that wanted to be a friend and ally. Congratulate your politicians next time you see them.

Now imagine what would f-22 and f-35 do with much better missiles if just 4 mig-29 launching preprogrammed Scalps and Harms can already hurt russian black sea that much.

The difference is that F-22s and F-35s need nice hard long concrete runways to operate from and air conditioned hangars that would be obliterated with Russian missiles that HATO air defences don't seem to be able to stop.

When Russia sinks a few aircraft carriers and destroys a few airfields HATO will want to talk.

F-22 or F-35 with Meteor is already overkill.

Can F-22 or F-35 even use Meteor?

How many times has it been successfully used in combat?

They don't seem very keen to use F-22s or F-35s, and they also seem to be spending money to replace them with older aircraft types that have a better proven record.

The thing is that they are built on a house of cards as being invincible and super planes better than anything else available, which is going to effect them badly if any get shot down in any conflict so the odds of them using them in any conflict is probably very low.

They would rather you sent in Typhoons and Rafales... and how many thousands of those are actually operational?

And you here talking about "limited deliveries" and "very effective"...

The propaganda is strong... but when tested in battle propaganda does not protect you from enemy fire.

Mines don't care how much you cost.

Russia has demolished HATO in the Ukraine and has done it with style.

All the promises of HATO have proven empty... high tech weapons and superior air power and electronics and satellites etc and of course even during the original cold war they admitted when the conventional war has been decided by superior Soviet/Warsaw Pact numbers that they would do what the Germans did with a sophisticated fighting withdrawal that will bleed and shred the Soviet forces following them up and kill them via a death of a thousand cuts.

Post cold war most of the Warsaw Pact and some Soviet countries have switched sides so the west now enjoyed a numeric superiority so they were thinking they could win conventionally, but then it seems with systems like Javelin and HIMARS they seem to think guerilla warfare might be part of the plan... the way they desperately got Sweden and Finland to join HATO after the current conflict started suggested they wanted more bodies and of course Finland probably has lots of soviet era tanks and equipment and systems they can donate to Kiev too... they had BUK and MiG-29s at one point, so maybe things they can donate from old storage.

HATO is a joke, and the US the biggest Joker.

Not that I don't take them seriously, because they are fucking mental and have no problems sending half a million Ukrainians to their grave just to get rid of Putin and damage BRICS, but it has only made them stronger and more independent and more powerful and now they know the west doesn't want them as slaves, they want them dead.

Gotta feel sorry for the 5th column in Russia... Navalny supporters trying to tell your average Russian that the west just wants to be friends and Putin is the problem... and that the west is a force for good...  Hahahahahaha.

GarryB wrote:
The actual difference between an upgraded T-62 with add on armour and thermals and cage armour and a T-14 is not as big as most people might think... the difference in price and costs is actually rather significant.
++
Using what you have is about getting rid of old crap when it is good enough to get the job done... you stored it because you thought it would be useful someday, well for much of the stuff that time is now.

amazingly then that Russia didnt stay with T-62 but moved and buikt T-14. What's more funny after Ukraine ceases to exist T-14 will be produced and T-62 not. Me thinks that due to Manul Kurganets will be either depely modified or even build new IVF on his place not upgraded BMP-1 or 2.

Stored T-62 is like Mosin rifle in WW2, it was used since it was cheaper in mass production and was in production already but in no way it was planned to be main infantry weapon in the future. Even during was it was phased out.

In terms of the MiG-29SMT it is an odd aircraft that is not the same as the other aircraft they have in service so getting rid of them for commonality would make sense.

Of course we hear claims they are trying to get rid of them but we don't hear that from the Air Force itself as an official policy... by the same token they are also trying to get rid of original model Su-27P fighters with various upgrades and of course the newer Su-35/30 aircraft.

The SMT was bought because it was cheap and already partly paid for... much like the Russian Navy never had money for new carrier aircraft, but when India bought some MiG-29KRs then with the production line set up the Russian Navy put an order in where they didn't have to pay for a production line to be set up and production started.

absolutely right. And yet Su-27 are also gradually being phased out as their life ends.

T-62s and Su-25s are also assets that continue to have upgrade packages developed for them so in the future when they are used they will be effective.

But that's the idea. Use as long as you can but it won't be long anyways. During war equipment wears out by order of magnitude faster then during storing. . They're gonna wear out and will be withdrawn. Did you hear about plans to restart production of T-62 or Su-25? even in peace times? neither did I.

GB wrote:

Well you can say make 100 engines so either 100 is for flakers or you split. You don't magically create extra production capacity and find extra skilled workers/engineers. (some resources go to retool manufacturing lines so the process is even more slowed down)

It is their patriotic duty to make weapons for the motherland or fatherland and they will work as hard to make them for Russian pilots destroying nazis in the Ukraine as they will export engines ending up being used by Pakistan or China or any other country that ends up using them.

In int'l relations is no such thing decision based on emotions not calculations. In my opinion is you stop delivering Chinese engines they might stop delivering you electronic components you depend on, Or sell thousands of drones monthly. Especially that we speak of legacy fighter produced in homeopathic numbers.

GB wrote:

MiG-35? in whooping number of 6 made?

The first order for most products is modest while you are testing them and seeing what they can or cannot do and how much they cost to operate.

Their could be a follow up order for 24 or 36 or 72 or 96 aircraft, or they could order 250.

[/quote]

instead of building other aircraft? number of workforce and suppliers is not infinite. What lower costs? costs are actually higher. Since fixed costs are the same and with small barch you never get small nt cost. . Will be couple time higher then Su-35.

GB wrote:
We don't know what their plans are, but the role of the MiG-35 is cheap but modern and sophisticated numbers aircraft you can deploy around your country to defend the urbanised area with lots of airfields around the place where they can operate from remote strips of motorway if their airfields are attacked.

But we do: ramped up Su-30/34/35 production and Su57. Looks like Su-57n is not ditched at all.

BTW in such case there will be nuclear war.

well looks like RuAF didn listen to you and keep ordering Su-27 derivatives.

It made sense at the time because it was the best use of limited funds... when you only have an airfleet of maybe 600-800 fighters then making them capable heavy fighters makes sense, but when you plan to have over 1,000 fighters then having all big heavy expensive to operate aircraft becomes a burden and smaller lighter numbers aircraft start to make sense... which is what is happening now.

You don't seem to grasp: 200 might would be delivered in 2030s and you expect plane designed in 1970's to be effective in 2040s?
It doesn't sound like those are plans for RuAF. RuAF seem sot eb pushing Su-75 as light fighter cheaper to operate. But new design form 2020s not 1970s and Su-57 for the future.

MiG also have their own wingman drone type too which they will likely introduce with their new light single engined stealth fighter  and carrier twin engined light fighter.

had in 2005 Skat.No info since 2010s. . Light 2 engine fighter maybe yes maybe not . Well need to wait.

Talk of actually putting them in production would hardly make sense if they didn't try the MiG-35s over Ukraine to see how they went.
An aircraft too precious to lose is too precious to use and is essentially useless.
If they are putting it into serial production I suspect they tested it and were happy with its performance and its costs.

Exactly! and they won't. Did you hear about even plans for MiG-35 production/procurement last two years?

GB wrote:Their might be some things that need working out... every new aircraft has niggles and issues that need to work out before you start serial production and commit to the type... that is why you only make 6 and not 600...

yup costs, logistics workforce and time to name a few.

GB wrote:

in 10 years whooping 6? whoa.

The current aircraft likely would not be able to be produced 10 years ago. Lots of new technology that had to be developed and perfected and put into production... prototype and serial production don't just happen.

Su-57 is already in production and Su-75 has many common parts. We dont know when Su-75 will be operational though. With launching mass production it seems lead time this is not far from MiG-35

GB wrote:

It seems that each Su producing factory is doing 3-4 per month to compare scale.

What are you trying to say? They can only buy and build Sukhois? Those sukhoi factories will be working to capacity, it makes obvious sense for MiG factories to start producing aircraft too.

surely then Sukhois will slow down not enough components or workforce. Smart decision in wartime if you ask me.

GB wrote:They have already ordered MiG-UTS trainers...

Absolutely logical decision - so many jets are being produced so pilots need to be trained . Not to mention Yak is 90s design. (MiG-29 - 70s)

GB wrote:Possibly cheaper, using less fuel, but a MiG-35 could carry four or more 250kg or 500kg glide bombs per flight and also carry self defence missiles.

Su-34 have been doing this last 2 years why to add new type of manned aircraft?

GB wrote:

Please show me one AF planning to build manned cCAS

Show me one AF that has CAS that has cancelled their CAS aircraft and scrapped them.

Russia continues to upgrade its helicopters which seem to be doing rather well.

OK the reality is no plans for CAS aircraft. Nowhere. Choppers? surely will evolve but CAS role unlikely will be theirs. Russian Ka028 use LMUR with 15km range what actually is not CAS anymore...

New generation radar and EO for the standoff detection of targets on the battlefield is getting better all the time and I suspect that sooner or later they will move it from the CAS fighter to the high ground... airships at 50km altitude... where most air defence systems would struggle in that thin air.

possibly but then it won't be CAS... but platform for standoff weapons.

GB wrote:

BTW F15 is counterpart of Su-30/35 not MiG-29s

If Russia put the MiG-23 and MiG-27 back into serial production for front line service you would think that meant the MiG-29 and Su-27 and subsequent models of these aircraft were failures.

vide Su57/75

GB wrote:F-15 going back into production is a desperate measure because the F-22 is shit and the F-35 is shit and it is quicker to put the F-15 back into production than it will take to develop a whole new aircraft design to fix the F-22 and F-35 are shit problems.

We both know its not true. F-35 has a looong list of orders and it was already 1000+ fighters made. F-15? 100?

GB wrote:

We were told they would be amazing game changers and would destroy Russian air defences w.

But they are FPV/Lancets/Geraniums... are definitely game changers and good are taking down air defence too.

GB wrote:

sure but it was a quarter of century ago. And it has little to do with the future wars.

In the naval arena the best weapon against drone attacks seems to be helicopters that can chase down drones on the water or in the air and match speed and fire rockets and cannon and machine gun fire to bring down these threats.

In fact I mentioned a couple of times that light helicopters like the attack version of the Ansat or the Ka-226 with a module with fuel and belted ammo and stub wings with rocket pods and cannon and machine guns would be an ideal platform for dealing with some drones... including naval surface drones.

Their speed and range means they can go out and meet enemy drone swarms while they are a distance from the ships they are attacking and they can be shot down from a safe distance and destroyed.

[/quote]

1) we were talking about Serbs -it was land now sea warfare
2) Helos with guns are surely stopgap not necessarily promising solution



3) Ansat /K-226 have been nowhere used on war theatre. For maritime protection of Sevastopol Mi-8 form Rosgvardia were used.

4) Drone swarms just fly into helicopter killin it . Regardless of number of guns. Perhaps speed.cna protect if you see them far enough

GarryB wrote:War in Syria and war in the Ukraine and these wonder planes are nowhere to be seen... because they are not there.

Israeli F-35s wont even fly into Syrian airspace.

Both NATO and Russian air defence has been extremely effective against enemy aircraft. But NATO air defence has failed to a large extent against Russian cruise missiles.

This shows that regardless of whether it is a Su-35 or a F-35, manned fighter aircraft are past their use by date when the enemy has a formidable air defence system in place.