MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

Did you see the video of su30 intercepting that drone?

Many said interception of small drones by fighters was not possible or efficient

The wests air defence is based around fighter aircraft and operating aircraft like the F-35 at 70K dollars per hour with million dollar air to air missiles to shoot down $500 Russian drones would be incredibly inefficient.

With much cheaper to buy and cheaper to fly Russian fighters and smaller lighter cheaper air to air missiles it becomes more practical.

In fact a Yak-130 with an AESA radar and MANPADS in clusters on its wing pylons as well as gun pods would be interesting.

Of course the Yak-130 was not affordable enough so they were making the single engined MiG-UTS which would be even better...

A nose mounted AESA radar, a centreline pod mounted targeting pod with thermals and digital TV night vision, and a couple of 23mm gun pods on inner wing pylons, a quad of Igla-S or Verba MANPADs on the second wing pylons and perhaps R-73s on wingtip pylons for self defence from enemy aircraft...

With new netcentric fighting systems most countries don't have enough recon platforms to fill out the details of where the enemy is all the time so the answer is to put the sensors on your normal platform and have them collect data on the enemy in real time with mission planning being based on a live map updated in real time by multiple platforms you are operating.

This means a light fighter makes sense to boost numbers so you have more eyes in the sky... but unlike more recon aircraft these aircraft are fully combat capable fighter bombers that can hit air and ground threats as they spot them, meaning they are less able to be overwhelmed in a surprise attack for instance.

Now it’s clear su30 had no issue to do so

Which lends strength to your argument, double the range does not equal double the coverage

This conflict has really changed things where the enemy uses drones for attack but also for recon.

Air power is not a waste of time, but it would struggle to handle the job on its own.

Air power would probably actually do a good job of roaming near the battlefield hunting down drones operating up high doing the spotting for attack and suicide drones, but modern AESA and IIR targeting pods would be essential as many of these drones would be difficult to spot and deal with.

Ironically command guided missiles like Kornet or Ataka with laser proximity fuses would probably be more effective than MANPADS for drones with a low IR signature like the electric ones.

The new SOSNA missile is laser beam riding and should be relatively cheap and able to be used against targets with low radar and low IR signatures too.

Since fighters can be used to shoot down drones, then the only logical conclusion is that the few that get by is due to gaps in fighter and air defense coverage

With large heavy fighters they probably don't have enough to give decent coverage and likely will mostly use them to cover attacks or strikes by aircraft or missiles.

Having enormous numbers of lighter cheaper fighters you could operate aircraft with ground forces to check the ground situation more often and give them an airborne IIR and AESA radar view of the enemy positions.

One issue will of course be IFF... a lot of those drones going out and coming back will be Russian drones of course... so you need some sort of ability to check you are not wasting ammo and helping the enemy.

So arguing against more fighters to plug gaps seems to me to be pure betrayal by greedy companies

I don't think Sukhoi thinks it is risking the lives of Russian soldiers, and I don't think it is just about money, but this war is really the first war where drones actually made a difference and ironically it is the Russian side that is holding up best with its ground based air defence, while the Ukrainians with their western equipment aircraft based defences are open season for cruise and ballistic missile attacks as well as drones because they can't generate the number of available aircraft they would need to get to a western level of performance with aircraft.

Of course with Russian attack missiles and air defence who is to say HATO would not quickly run out of aircraft too?

Having a great range does not mean having great coverage, the SMO showed that

Range is not a bad thing but twice the range does not equal twice the coverage... and it does not justify twice the cost.

So an argument in favor of light fighters is justified - and if MiG35 can do this job for cheaper and better by virtue of the fact that there will be more fighters, then why are the sukhoi fanboys so against it?

Well what I really don't understand is that the MiG-35 does not replace anything... for lots of MiG-35s to be useful you would also need Su-30s and Su-35s and Su-34s and of course Su-57s. If anything the MiG-35 might take over some of the roles the Su-25 performs... if we look at this conflict the Su-25 tries to hang back from the target area and loft 80mm rockets at the target area... well a MiG-35 could do that from higher altitude from further back... lobbing rockets from 80m above the ground at 30 degrees angle upwards from 5km range, the MiG-35 could do that at 5,000m with the nose pointed at the horizon... and at 500km/h would not be a MANPADS target at all for enemy ground troops.

The point is that the Su-25 was all about direct fire at the enemy targets with cannon pods and rockets and dumb bombs... in this conflict the enemy has MANPADS and air defence systems that appear to make that too dangerous so low level flight and lofted rockets... suggests standoff weapons might be more suitable... glide bombs... which would benefit from being launched further away but from higher and faster.

Dropping glide bombs on targets from 20km with a Su-25 would not really make sense because it wouldn't be able to find targets at that distance.

A MiG-35 with AESA radar and IIR targeting pods should have a rather good picture of what is happening on the ground from 5-10km altitude... it could transmit its view in real time to the commander on the ground who could use it to find targets and pick them out for the MiG to attack with glide bombs.

They could be 300mm slim long range glide bomb or cheap dumb bombs with glide kits.

Why do they persist in arguing for a small fleet of large fighters that exposes Russia to drone attacks?

To be clear I don't think light fighters will make Russian troops safe from drones... tiny FPV drones and small recon drones used to direct artillery and suicide drones are going to be a problem, but having more radars and more weapons operating overhead means more weapons to kill more targets faster and more data in your live battle map, which makes it better.

The issue of IFF for drones is something the Russians are working on too, and AI systems for operating large groups of drones to attack large groups of enemy targets will become an overwhelming force.

Russian MoD need big fighter to cover their big country. Having also 2 type of fighters isn't easy in terms of budget. Su-75 uses su-57 components so it the budget isn't impacted, nor the supply.

Big fighters don't offer better coverage, even small fighters can use inflight refuelling tankers to cover large areas if that was the problem.

If it was about the budget why would you choose the bigger more expensive aircraft over the smaller lighter cheaper aircraft?

Su-75 has not even flown yet. Who knows how much it will actually cost to make and operate?

A second plane using the same engines and same components makes bottlenecks in their production... and component availability becomes an issue.

Has many HATO countries deciding to buy the F-35 made F-35 parts cheaper?

Furthermore as a provocation, Russia should propose the mig-35 to the Fico government in Slovakia.
For sure it is not worst than the F-16 block 70 which they will be paying so much to get.

Amusing idea but the next change of government and Kiev would get them...

And maybe in 2 /3 years we will be able to see some Russian Mig35 squadrons in some new bases in the west of Russia, like Odessa, Lvov or Ivano- Frankovsk.

And that is an important point... in 2-3 years the Su-75 might have made its first flight, while in 2-3 years the MiG-35 could be in serial production.

If the Su-75's price tag is around 30+ million US$ as advertised, countries like North Korea, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Vietnam, Lybia etc. would much rather invest in the Su-75 than the Mig-35.

It hasn't even flown yet, so if they want to wait ten years for first flight and testing and problem solving and debugging etc etc and then serial production...

If other countries don't want to spend 40 million on a MiG-35 they can buy the MiG-29M for 30 million and get a plane that is cheap to operate and later on they can upgrade it with AESA radar as that becomes affordable...

If the Russian Navy has AWACS carrier designs they could buy those and the MiG-29M might never need to turn its radar on.

Simple logic applies: The Su-75 is a more capable 5th gen fighter with a single engine - making it much cheaper and more efficient to operate than the twin engine 4th+ generation Mig-35.

If you are using your simple logic then add in the fact that the Su-75 has never flown and that the MiG-35 is in low rate serial production.

And if single engined fighters are cheaper to operate then try to explain the F-35 at 75K US dollars per hour plus operating costs per flight hour. The carrier based British F-35 was described as a 90K POUND per hour fighter... that is eye wateringly expensive... imagine a twin engined version...

Except the Chinese version did away with the ridiculous US engine and went for two smaller engines and probably fixed the core problem of that aircraft... gold plated engine with a diamond encrusted drive shaft... super engine that can't operate in full AB for more than 90 seconds or it melts parts of the plane.

With Sukhois track record the Su-75 will probably be a rather nice plane... I would pick it over any western fourth or fifth generation plane to be honest, but MiG know what they are doing too and comments on this forum and elsewhere about a Yak-130 fighter as a replacement for the MiG-29 is amusing because first of all it has some merit but when you think it through... the Yak-130 is not cheap but it is cheap compared with medium and heavy fighters. If you start adding AESA radar and modern self defence avionics then it starts to get close to the cost of a MiG-35 but without the supersonic performance and weapons capacity. Putting a bigger engine or engines in the Yak-130 would make it even more expensive and fill up the internal capacity of the aircraft meaning no room for any essentials.

You would end up with a fighter almost as expensive as a MiG-35 but not as capable and not stealthy.

Well with their new model I have posted the image several times and it looks like a LIFT... but it is stealthy which makes it better than the MiG-35, it has internal weapon bays and a stealth design. It will likely have AESA radar and a modern avionics suite and it is small and single engined.

But they don't like that either...

MiG, as usual have covered all their bases, they have a twin engined light fighter for use on Russian aircraft carriers... this would operate with Su-57s rather than replace them because the different sized aircraft compliment each other. Su-57s give reach and speed if you want it, while a smaller lighter MiG twin fighter gives numbers and is good enough for loitering around the ships it s supposed to be defending.

They even have an unmanned wingman type drone.

Some countries will pick Sukhoi but there is room for both in my opinion, and Russia would do well to have both.

Commonality only goes so far... an AK based shotgun makes sense in terms of reliability and training, an AK based DMR rifle and an AK based SMG also could be useful, but an AK pistol does not make sense at all.


BTW regarding a fighter aircraft shooting down a drone who can forget 2008, the MiG-29 vs the Georgian drone made in Israel...

GarryB wrote:
The wests air defence is based around fighter aircraft and operating aircraft like the F-35 at 70K dollars per hour

That's the number for the F-22, not the F-35 just FYI.

Not that the cost per hour for the F-35 is great anyway, @ $40K/hour, still though, just for the sake of accuracy.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
Many of these countries have trained pilots and have already operated mig-29 for many years. It would be much easier to replace them with Mig35.

We'll that does not mean you have to keep on flying Migs till the end of time now does it? Almost all the countries I have mentioned would require a 5th gen fighter very soon. It will be rather stupid to invest in retro stuff if your enemy flies around in brand new 5th and even 6th gen fighters in the near future.

As an example - North Korea just signed a very important security agreement with Russia. Like the Chinese of old they are desperately trying to modernize their armed forces. They are surrounded by countries that are fitted out with high tech equipment - including 5th gen fighters. I'm afraid Mikoyan will have to comply or they will go extinct.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Furthermore I doubt that the Su-75 will be ready to be given to customers before 2030

That maybe so - but most of the development has already been done and dusted with the Su-57 prototypes.

GarryB wrote:If you are using your simple logic then add in the fact that the Su-75 has never flown and that the MiG-35 is in low rate serial production.

Yes that makes perfect sense - they are a complete generation apart. Simple logic.

Mir wrote:

GarryB wrote:If you are using your simple logic then add in the fact that the Su-75 has never flown and that the MiG-35 is in low rate serial production.

Yes that makes perfect sense - they are a complete generation apart. Simple logic.

Yes, but US customers are still getting their F16 and France customers are still ordering Rafales. These planes are not 5th generation either.

What are the advantages of a 5th generation aircraft against a 4++ with modern avionics and radars?

Lower radar visibility?

If so it is not needed for everything, but just in some numbers for specific operations.

For everything else, a non stealth plane is a cheaper option (and sometimes better).

Naturally some poor countries can't afford the latest tech - so they will have to make do with upgraded fighters, or even older generation stuff. Note - this includes the US, Germany and France  

I'm talking about countries that will have to modernize or face defeat. Putin is currently in Vietnam - doing the same thing he did in North Korea.

Granted the Mig-35 is far superior than a first gen Mig-29, but it is not stealthy enough against a more modern adversary like the Su-75. All weapons are on external pylons giving it a rather large RCS compared to the Su-75. Easy pickings for the Su-75 in a one on one.

I have mentioned that the Su-75 is a single engine fighter - making it much more simpler/economical to operate than the Mig-35.

Gripen is also still in service as is Rafale with NATO

China has many JF17 and JF10 with AESA radars

Indian Tejas is a 4th gen plane in production right now

https://t.me/fighter_bomber/17046

There is su30, no it does not protect troops, they need something for FPV besides turtle tanks

This is for rear protection of oil refineries, OTH radar, borei submarines, and su57 prototypes that get yeeted by cheap tekever and leleka drones - borei hasn’t happened yet but I’m not holding my breathe

Su30 did beautiful, except a caveat - it’s too expensive and too few to fulfill such a role

On top of that they are busy with su35 performing entirely other missions

Nope - MOD and fanboys were wrong - large interceptors with big range did not provide double coverage for gaps in Russian air defense

We arrive to square 1

Light fighters with AESA and cheap operating costs are needed to do this mission and other multi role ones as well

Yes I agree Russia does have a need for a light fighter. The question remains which one? I think the Su-75 is the best bet atm.

If the need is desperate (which I don't believe it is) they can easily forward the Su-75 timeline as it is basically a single engine variant of the Su-57.

Mir wrote:Yes I agree Russia does have a need for a light fighter. The question remains which one? I think the Su-75 is the best bet atm.

If the need is desperate (which I don't believe it is) they can easily forward the Su-75 timeline as it is basically a single engine variant of the Su-57.

Yes, Russia need Su-75, mainly for the Navy but I doubt for the VKS

MiG-35 will be for export mainly, despite it is not clear if in Yerevan will be based new figthers, MiG-35 or Su-30SM, because the imbecile of Pashinian did not allow the delivery

Russia will use MiG-35 probably only in acrobatic team for display and in training units: Kuschevskaya is where the foreign pilots train with russian airplanes and Astrakhan as "agressor squadron could use the MiG-35

So what about drones then? Clearly fighters are useful against them

Sukhoi cannot do this mission as the cost makes it too expensive to have enough , and a multi role fighter is preferable to Yak130 with AESA

I don’t see using su75 as a drone interceptor/multi role missile truck , that would be a waste -

So the option is…

AMCXXL wrote:
Yes, Russia need Su-75, mainly for the Navy but I doubt for the VKS

I can't really see why the Su-75 would mainly serve in the navy but not the VKS?[/quote]

Arkanghelsk wrote:So what about drones then? Clearly fighters are useful against them

Sukhoi cannot do this mission as the cost makes it too expensive to have enough , and a multi role fighter is preferable to Yak130 with AESA

I don’t see using su75 as a drone interceptor/multi role missile truck , that would be a waste -

So the option is…

There are sooo many options available to defend against drones - you don't need a light fighter just for that purpose.
But if you insist - how about a modified Mig-UTS (ATS) trainer as a cheap drone killer?

If it is a stealth plane, it probably needs also special coating to be regularly applied. Furthermore in order to be stealthy, there must be other compromises. One of these could be also ease of maintenance, in which the more "rugged" plane could have a higher availability in intensive operations.

Furthermore why should the su-75 be absolutely better?
As said before, not all missions require stealth. So if not operating in a mission which requires stealth, you do not need the stealth plane.

It is like the BS in the last topgun movie: if you have to approach another plane and go at a range where you can shoot with the gun against the other plane, why are you using a 5th generation aircraft?

At that distance being stealthy does not really bring the same kind of advantages.

The way I see you may need a relatively limited number of stealth planes, mixed with a higher number of 4++ generation aircrafts.

Arkanghelsk wrote:So what about drones then? Clearly fighters are useful against them

Sukhoi cannot do this mission as the cost makes it too expensive to have enough , and a multi role fighter is preferable to Yak130 with AESA

I don’t see using su75 as a drone interceptor/multi role missile truck , that would be a waste -

So the option is…

They need help in covering airspace here and now, as it is obvious that AA systems alone can't cover whole territory. There should be around 100 airworthy Mig-29's of different versions. They should disperse them in more directions and use them for shooting down drones that escape air defense systems.

Let's say that for hunting drones a radar is even redundant.
An IRST is a better choice given the speed and quote involved as it wouldn't have problem with the clutter/low velocity that made drones impervious to radar detection instead.
Still you would need a plane capable to operate low speed/quote, an updated Mig-21/J-7 (but also an F-16) it is not the best choice there.
And something would pass anyway, no matter how much resources you would invest on it.

So, IMHO even 100 Yak-133 would not suffice there(and in any case better to use them as attack planes).

Mir wrote:

AMCXXL wrote:
Yes, Russia need Su-75, mainly for the Navy but I doubt for the VKS

I can't really see why the Su-75 would mainly serve in the navy but not the VKS?

[/quote]

VKS will use PAK-FA (Su-57) and in future PAK-DP (MiG-41 or MiG-51)

for the moment, the fighter regiments will use Su-57, MiG-31BM and Su-35

every Combined Arms Army will have attached a figther regiment a bomber regiment (Su-34) and a Helicopter Brigade
This was stated by Minister of Defence in early 2022, just before the Special Military Operation
No more figther regiments are expected, except one for new Leningrad District
all the current figther regiments and the one new expected will receive Su-57, except those with MiG-31. This is at least 200 Su-57

the only way I can see any form of Su-75 is as CAS airplane for replace Su-25 , probably unmanned. Replacement (or not) of Su-25, is the only doubt in the future of VKS

in the rest of cases, Su-75 will be for the Navy as shipborne figther or as much costal figther (in Kaliningrad etc...)

marcellogo wrote:Let's say that for hunting drones a radar is even redundant.
An IRST is a better choice given the speed and quote involved as it wouldn't have problem with the clutter/low velocity that made drones impervious to radar detection  instead.
Still you would need a plane capable to operate low speed/quote, an updated Mig-21/J-7 (but also an F-16) it is not the best choice there.
And something would pass anyway, no matter how much resources you would invest on it.

So, IMHO even 100 Yak-133 would not suffice there(and in any case better to use them as attack planes).

Not much heat coming from tekever drones

And the contrast isn’t so great due to that reason to be picked up clearly on IRST

AESA radar is the best actually because of its ability to really pick out a target with a small RCS like Tekever

I’d says the BRLS-130 for YAK130 or MIG35 with Zhuk AE are the best options for this mission category

I lean to MiG35 because it can also perform frontline missions like lob bombs and PGM

And at the same time fly an interceptor role for drones

I’d rather leave su57 focused on its missions that require stealth

And su35/30 flying as long range interceptor working with IADS

MiG35 can be a sweeper of whatever is not picked up by other systems

That’s the concept between the “Hi-lo” mix

And while applicable to 5th and 6th gen fighters, this specific mission is for 4+++ gen fighters

There’s no stealth or complexity involved in just having a robust suite of PGMs to use as a missile truck

And the point defense role against penetrating drones , Cessna, cruise missile and other targets that will get through the other systems because of the huge size of Russia

AMCXXL wrote:
VKS will use PAK-FA (Su-57) and in future PAK-DP (MiG-41 or MiG-51)

for the moment, the fighter regiments will use Su-57, MiG-31BM and Su-35

every Combined Arms Army will have attached a figther regiment a bomber regiment (Su-34) and a Helicopter Brigade
This was stated by Minister of Defence in early 2022, just before the Special Military Operation
No more figther regiments are expected, except one for new Leningrad District
all the current figther regiments and the one new expected will receive Su-57, except those with MiG-31. This is at least 200 Su-57

the only way I can see any form of Su-75 is as CAS airplane for replace Su-25 , probably unmanned. Replacement (or not) of Su-25, is the only doubt in the future of VKS

in the rest of cases, Su-75 will be for the Navy as shipborne figther or as much costal figther (in Kaliningrad etc...)

Even before the SMO Sukhoi indicated that a naval Su-57 was under development already. They may well look at a naval version of the Su-75 as well - but nothing official on it as far as I know?

Things have changed drastically since the SMO and I think the number of regiments will be significantly increased due to the perceived threat from NATzo.

Btw last night Russian AD shot down 120 drones - pretty good going I'd say

I guess that most of those are downed with electronic suppression systems.

That's the number for the F-22, not the F-35 just FYI.

Not that the cost per hour for the F-35 is great anyway, @ $40K/hour, still though, just for the sake of accuracy.

Not sure about the source of the information for this image, but the British said that the F-35s they operate on their carrier cost 90K Pounds per hour in maintenance and support per flight hour.

Almost all the countries I have mentioned would require a 5th gen fighter very soon. It will be rather stupid to invest in retro stuff if your enemy flies around in brand new 5th and even 6th gen fighters in the near future.

Not every country intends to take on HATO... in fact I would say for most European countries having 4th or 5th gen fighters is all about pride and ego and US bullying and that strictly speaking they don't really need an air force at all.

They are surrounded by countries that are fitted out with high tech equipment - including 5th gen fighters. I'm afraid Mikoyan will have to comply or they will go extinct.

And if they want an aircraft within the next five to ten years the MiG-35 and the Su-35 and the Su-57 are their only real options... but the cost of all the networking stuff and all the command and control stuff needed to make 4th gen fighters useful let alone 5th gen fighters will make the individual cost of a MIG-35 look rather cheap.

That maybe so - but most of the development has already been done and dusted with the Su-57 prototypes.

I would expect a single engined light 5th gen fighter to operate in rather different ways than a heavy 5th gen interceptor and the testing and likely tactics and roles will be rather different.

The light fighter is more likely to be a bit of a bomb truck... probably with glide bombs, but lots of zoom climbs and accelerating to high speed and releasing weapons and then slowing down and perhaps observing the results...

Yes, but US customers are still getting their F16 and France customers are still ordering Rafales. These planes are not 5th generation either.

What are the advantages of a 5th generation aircraft against a 4++ with modern avionics and radars?

Lower radar visibility?

Not to mention that the advantages of stealth mostly disappear when you have to carry extra weapons externally because there are just so many targets at the start of a conflict... including drones and enemy missiles to shoot down.

Naturally some poor countries can't afford the latest tech - so they will have to make do with upgraded fighters, or even older generation stuff. Note - this includes the US, Germany and France

I like the joke... even more so because the US and Germany and France are so arrogant that they will spend money they don't have on aircraft they only need because they are greedy and want Ukraine and Russia and Chinas resources and production capacity to be working for them.

Some poor countries could afford 5th gen fighters, but they would get a rather larger force if they bought cheaper 4th gen light fighters and complimented them with 4th gen heavy fighters in a few locations and roles.

That is the purpose of light and heavy aircraft types, it increases your bang for your buck... well that is what it is supposed to do, but in the case of the only western country who has their own 5th gen fighters it has pretty much bankrupted them and led them to a place where they are putting 4th gen fighters back into production at enormous expense, and are looking to jump a generation to 6th gen to fix the problems. Except when they can't make a decent 5th gen fighter what are their chances with a 6th gen?

Granted the Mig-35 is far superior than a first gen Mig-29, but it is not stealthy enough against a more modern adversary like the Su-75. All weapons are on external pylons giving it a rather large RCS compared to the Su-75. Easy pickings for the Su-75 in a one on one.

You say easy pickings but the MiG-35 can fly as high and as fast as the Su-35 and can carry the same long range AAMs, so how is it inferior to an Su-35 in the same role?

I would say buying MiG-35s and buying an AWACS based on a carrier based AWACS plane that we can assume the Russian Navy is working on (they will appreciate a boost in funding I suspect) and you get a force that is good enough for the next ten years while you wait for the new 5th gen fighter options from Russia.

With modern AESA radar and modern self defence avionics suite I don't think the MiG-35 will be invulnerable, but it wont be easy meat either.

It could certainly carry enough ordinance to hit back at any country that threatened their airspace and its range of anti ship missiles would make life difficult for any carrier group trying to interfere in that countries affairs.

I have mentioned that the Su-75 is a single engine fighter - making it much more simpler/economical to operate than the Mig-35.

The F-35 is a single engined fighter too... is it simpler and more economical to operate?

The question remains which one? I think the Su-75 is the best bet atm.

The best choice is always the one that is not developed yet. Why not choose the deathstar... it hasn't flown yet either.

If the need is desperate (which I don't believe it is) they can easily forward the Su-75 timeline as it is basically a single engine variant of the Su-57.

The fact that they had a 4th gen light numbers fighter and now they are working on a 5th gen light numbers fighter suggests the numbers fighter makes sense as a concept.

Light numbers fighters don't have to be top level super planes... that is what the heavy fighter of that generation is for... making MiG-35s now will get AESA radars into serial production which will help improve their performance and reduce their costs.

The Su-75 might result in a useful aircraft buy you are talking about waiting ten years and then putting something into serial production you don't know anything at all about... your crystal ball must be amazing.

When is the conflict in the Ukraine going to end?

Yes, Russia need Su-75, mainly for the Navy but I doubt for the VKS

It is not a military programme, this is Sukhoi trying to create an aircraft to get interest for export and maybe domestic interest to have a look when it is finished.

A bit like the Su-25 which turned out to be a success... but no guarantees.

Russia will use MiG-35 probably only in acrobatic team for display and in training units: Kuschevskaya is where the foreign pilots train with russian airplanes and Astrakhan as "agressor squadron could use the MiG-35

If they decide on the light fighter concept for 4th and 5th gen fighters then new units equivalent to the old Frontal Aviation fighter bomber units will be formed to cooperate with the Army.

Being a lighter cheaper numbers plane they will operate probably twice as many MiG-35s as Su-35s, because that is what a numbers plane is.

I don’t see using su75 as a drone interceptor/multi role missile truck , that would be a waste -

For hunting recon drones and scanning the battlefield front lines with AESA radar and IIR sensors would be a bit of a waste of the capabilities of any 5th gen fighter or heavy 4th gen fighter.

I can't really see why the Su-75 would mainly serve in the navy but not the VKS?

[/quote]

I don't think the navy would be interested in a single engined fighter. Last time around the Russian Air Force said no to all single engined fighters so MiG dropped their Izd33 design and instead produced the MiG-29 with two engines.

This time around they have a drone and a single engined and twin engined options, all three could be used on land and sea, but the twin engined model is assumed to be carrier based and the single engined fighter assumed to be land based, but both forces can pick whichever option they want.

But if you insist - how about a modified Mig-UTS (ATS) trainer as a cheap drone killer?

Not much of a bomb truck... the cost of adding the things it would need like an AESA and EO targeting and self defence avionics... and even then with a single AL-222 engine it is not going to be able to carry anything like what a MIG-35 can already carry but will not likely be cheaper.

Hunting enemy recon drones will be part of the frontal aviation role of light fighter bomber looking for air and ground targets to kill.

It is like the BS in the last topgun movie: if you have to approach another plane and go at a range where you can shoot with the gun against the other plane, why are you using a 5th generation aircraft?

Even better, if your enemy is stupid enough to dive down into a river valley and risk crashing into the walls of the valley... why follow him down there?

Fly above him and watch to see if he crashes... if he doesn't fly above him and launch missiles at him... being in a river valley with limited manouver options he is much less likely to evade your missiles and your chances of crashing are zero, while he manouvers to stay alive and avoid hitting the rocks or the river.

The way I see you may need a relatively limited number of stealth planes, mixed with a higher number of 4++ generation aircrafts.

The first revision of western mantra was that stealth aircraft would go in and clean up the enemy air force and air defence network and then the non stealthy aircraft could come in and control the situation and stealthy planes can start operating with external weapons in a non stealthy role with more weapons than they can carry internally.

The fight in Kosovo and now in the Ukraine shows that individual air defence systems can remain dangerous even when the network is down, and also that with a very strong air defence network like the one Russia operates it might never be defeated because it is designed to take damage and continue to work.

This means an all stealth air force is going to limit the number of targets you can engage at any time... but I really suspect that stealthy 5th gen aircraft will take on the role of recon and 4th gen fighters with their wings full of ordinance can come in and take out the targets as the 5th gen aircraft detect them.

A bit like the recon and suicide drones and how they work together.

They need help in covering airspace here and now, as it is obvious that AA systems alone can't cover whole territory. There should be around 100 airworthy Mig-29's of different versions. They should disperse them in more directions and use them for shooting down drones that escape air defense systems.

That would be a start... ramping up production of MiG-35s should be possible... it is intended to be the numbers aircraft and should be able to be produced in large numbers fairly quickly.

Let's say that for hunting drones a radar is even redundant.

An AESA radar on a MiG-35 might have more luck detecting the bigger drones and of course it has optical targeting pods available to it as well for air and ground targets.

Digital night vision equipment would spot laser target markers in use from drones as well, plus it would be easier to use MiG-35s to deliver 500kg glide bombs than larger heavier more expensive types too.

VKS will use PAK-FA (Su-57) and in future PAK-DP (MiG-41 or MiG-51)

for the moment, the fighter regiments will use Su-57, MiG-31BM and Su-35

If they decide they need a numbers fighter I would think they plan to have a much larger fleet of aircraft... which would be prohibitively expensive if you want to put any of those into serial mass production to make a few hundred more of them.

in the rest of cases, Su-75 will be for the Navy as shipborne figther or as much costal figther (in Kaliningrad etc...)

Can't see them opting for a single engined aircraft.

I guess that most of those are downed with electronic suppression systems.

Could be, but there wont ever be a magic bullet that works on everything every time...

There will be dozens of different solutions and the more often they can apply these solutions the better...

A laser pod connected to the MiG-35s engines to power a 250Kw laser or directed energy beam... or a command guided rocket with an EMP warhead that makes electronic flying things go to sleep within 500m of the rocket...

Lots of ideas and solutions.

The point is that a cheaper light numbers fighter makes sense to get more sensors and more weapons on the battlefield to find and kill the enemy when he pops his head up.

GarryB wrote:You say easy pickings but the MiG-35 can fly as high and as fast as the Su-35 and can carry the same long range AAMs, so how is it inferior to an Su-35 in the same role?

It is inferior to the Su-35S in many respects:

*The Mig-35 has inferior radar (no AESA for the 6 operational Mig-35's so far)
*The Mig-35 has dismal range compared to the Su-35
*The Mig-35 has a very limited weapons load copared to the Su-35 - esp if it needs external fuel tanks for the job.
*Unlike the Su-35, the Mig-35 does not have any thrust vectoring (so far only optional). Thrust vectoring gives the Su-35 a huge advantage in close combat over the Mig-35.

In fact the Egyptians opted for the Mig-29M instead of the Mig-35. They got an aircraft basically just as capable as the Mig-35 for much cheaper - ordering 45 instead of 24.

GarryB wrote:The F-35 is a single engined fighter too... is it simpler and more economical to operate?

The Su-75 is not an F-35. Just because the F-15E is expensive to operate, does not mean that the Su-30SM would be equally expensive.
Compared to the F-22 the Su-57 is a breeze when it comes to maintenance and cost - the Su-75 would be no different.

GarryB wrote:The best choice is always the one that is not developed yet. Why not choose the deathstar... it hasn't flown yet either.

The "deathstar" is a fantasy, whilst the Su-75 is quite real you know.

GarryB wrote: Last time around the Russian Air Force said no to all single engined fighters so MiG dropped their Izd33 design and instead produced the MiG-29 with two engines.

The Russians withdrew all single engine fighters in the 90's mainly due to financial reasons. The Project 33 was a early 1980's Mikoyan design that looked like the F-16, but it did not get anywhere. The reason why they dropped it had nothing to do with Russia's decision to withdraw single engine fighters. The twin engine Mig-29 started its development in the mid 70's - it had no relation to Project 33.

It is inferior to the Su-35S in many respects:

Are you drunk?

The Su-35S is the heavy expensive fighter... if you think the smaller cheaper lighter fighter that will operate with it will be better than it... what are you thinking?

How can you make a plane smaller and lighter and cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate that is better than the bigger fighter?

If you want a better fighter you don't make it smaller and lighter and Cheaper.

*The Mig-35 has inferior radar (no AESA for the 6 operational Mig-35's so far)

The intention was that the MiG-35 would have an AESA radar... that will only happen when it is properly funded and in full serial production... new technology improves over time with production and experience.

We don't know whether their MiG-35s have AESA radars fitted or not. As there are only six they could have hand made each of them as six prototypes and the last few years of experience they could have improved and updated them and improved production to the point where they can serial produce them.

Or they could operate radar silent with an Su-30 providing overwatch and directing them to targets using its radar instead.

*The Mig-35 has dismal range compared to the Su-35

Every 4th gen light fighter has a dismal range compared with the Su-35... if you need a long range fighter for a job use an Su-35 or Su-30.

It is not rocket science Mir... you basically hate the MiG-35 because it is not an Su-35... but if it was then it wouldn't be cheap and it wouldn't compliment the Su-35 in use so it would not make sense to have them.

*The Mig-35 has a very limited weapons load copared to the Su-35 - esp if it needs external fuel tanks for the job.

When there are three or four MiG-35s for every Su-35 you have in service and they operate over shorter distances closer to their air bases then they don't need to carry 7 tons on each flight.

BTW most Su-35 operational flights I have seen they carry maybe two bombs and four AAMs and a single Kh-31 anti radiation missile... the MiG-35 could do that and still carry a centreline tank and have one pylon free for a jamming pod or recon pod to make the Kh-31 more useful.

*Unlike the Su-35, the Mig-35 does not have any thrust vectoring (so far only optional). Thrust vectoring gives the Su-35 a huge advantage in close combat over the Mig-35.

They have thrust vectoring ready to go, as shown by the MiG-29OVT... if that was relevant and useful they could have it easily enough.

In fact the Egyptians opted for the Mig-29M instead of the Mig-35. They got an aircraft basically just as capable as the Mig-35 for much cheaper - ordering 45 instead of 24.

The difference in price is basically all the equipment is improved and an AESA radar... and the Russian Air Force wont be paying what any export customer will be paying.... normally the profit margin is 30% for exports, which is why Sukhoi is doing so well.

If they wanted to they could put the MiG-29M into serial production... it is the same airframe... and save more money... and then as the new technology like AESA radars becomes more affordable and more mature they can upgrade them.

But that is not what the OAK website document says... it says serial production for the MiG-35, which means it will get all the best equipment and systems and that is good because they will likely be testing new stuff they will be developing for their new 5th gen MiG fighters that can be tested in the MiG-35 the way that Sukhoi was testing new systems and equipment for the Su-57 in the Su-35.

The Su-75 is not an F-35. Just because the F-15E is expensive to operate, does not mean that the Su-30SM would be equally expensive.

I am just pointing out that having a single engine does not necessarily make an aircraft cheaper to operate... some engines are expensive and high maintenance.

The F-5 was a twin engined cheap fighter and its replacement had a single engine and was not cheaper to operate... in fact the F-20 was more expensive yet did not offer the level of improvement to make it better than an F-16. The F-16 is not exactly cheap to operate either.

The MiG-21 was very cheap and very simple to operate, which made it a very popular aircraft, but not because it only had one engine.

Compared to the F-22 the Su-57 is a breeze when it comes to maintenance and cost - the Su-75 would be no different.

I agree, even though it does not exist yet the Su-75 would probably be much cheaper to support than an F-35, but part of the higher operating costs of the Su-35 is its engines... making the MiG-35 with one engine from an Su-35 instead of the two engines it uses wont make it cheaper, because the engine is not cheap to support and operate... relatively speaking. You don't get engines of almost double thrust without increasing the costs and wear on parts...

The "deathstar" is a fantasy, whilst the Su-75 is quite real you know.

Until the Su-75 actually flys and they can confirm orders for it it is also a fantasy... a rather more likely fantasy, but still vapourware.

The Russians withdrew all single engine fighters in the 90's mainly due to financial reasons. The Project 33 was a early 1980's Mikoyan design that looked like the F-16, but it did not get anywhere. The reason why they dropped it had nothing to do with Russia's decision to withdraw single engine fighters. The twin engine Mig-29 started its development in the mid 70's - it had no relation to Project 33.

The Project 33 was a single engined light 4th gen fighter that was still born because the Russian military at the time didn't want a single engined light fighter and rejected it so it didn't go anywhere.

People complain that the MiG-29 should have been single engined to make it cheaper and more different from the Su-27 and they had that idea too and it was rejected by their main customer.