MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #3

Here is the Mig-35D. You should immediately see the the much smaller nosecone and the two dielectric panels instead of the one on the Mig-29M2.

And here are two Mi-29/35 with different sized nose cones but the same dielectric panel, so I don't think you can use the number of dielectric panels to determine whether or not a Mig has an Aesa radar.



And this second Mig that you show is a display/test model and I have never seen a test model that did not present numerous differences in relation to its production variant. Anyway, if you don't believe that Russia is capable of producing half a dozen Aesa radars so I have a bridge to sell you as Mercouris would say.

Belisarius wrote:
And here are two Mi-29/35 with different sized nose cones but the same dielectric panel, so I don't think you can use the number of dielectric panels to determine whether or not a Mig has an Aesa radar.

In the picture you posted the Mig at the top is the first production Mig-35UB for the Russians. The second aircraft is a development Mig-29M2. You can clearly see in your picture that the nosecone is an insert. Maybe the used it to test the AESA? I know that they have used Mig-29M2's for exhibit purposes as Mig-35. Remember the black and blue "Mig-35" with the exposed AESA? That is actually one of the prototypes of the Mig-29M2.



Correction: I just checked Bort 967 and interestingly it started it's life as an Indian Mig-29KUB but was canceled. It was then converted to a Mig-35D demonstrator but sadly it crashed in 2011 near Akhtubinsk. That is why it looks a little different compared to the other Mig-35 demonstrators.

Phazotron and rest don't make the TR modules. It's NPO Istok and 1 other company. Istok makes GaN and GaAS modules.

Arkanghelsk wrote:

For a radar with 1-5 KW of peak power - that is better performance than N011 BARS , on a smaller car, with RD33, and smaller and more modern/efficient electronics

This opens up so many possibilities that it is an obvious foregone conclusion that development of ZHUK AESA is for the betterment of Russian aviation

Basically you are getting an AESA with better capabilities in every metric, compared to BARS and BARS M , only limited by investment in development for less power output and more precise electronic control systems

BARS M achieved additional range and tracking capability through the implementation of a klystron and a beam control unit from IRBIS

It is an achievement for PESA design, but with AL31 , they won’t reach the same performance as IRBIS until they can integrate AL41 on su30, and as far as we know - they have not been able to do so

The reality is, if the MOD put the investment up to scale production of the radar, it would be ready to go - and let me remind the figures we know of are from prototype design

The more that they improve the quality of components, and integration, the better the results will be - and for what they are they already rival and even surpass BARS-M with a equal power output and for lower diameter/weight

And as they keep improving ZHUK AESA can rival  IRBIS at a later stage with more power fed to the unit

That is basically what Tikhomirov is supposedly already doing with Byelka - AESA with 20kw peak power , on a smaller radar it’s obviously not going to get that kind of performance, but with what we see from Zhuk - it’s not bad at all for what it currently does

But to summarize , N011 BARS M has search range of 400km for 3m2 and tracking range of 200km

Zhuk AE demonstrated with 1000 TR modules only , detection range of 250km with tracking capability at similar range, and tracking of over 30 targets

That is with less power, you get similar performance with enhanced beam control, and LPI

This is better performance than AN APG68, on block 52 and even AN APG 80 on block 60 f16 as well as similar performance to RBE2 on Rafale

Of course AESA Zhuk should be better than BARS M, as design of BARS-M was finalized during the worst time of modern Russian history some 25 years ago. With minimal money spent on R&D. It was done very quickly with already available tech as a solution for tender with India. Most of the major components for it come from USSR time end of 80's research. And it performed admirably for what it is, as it can be witnessed by many Indian reports which are often very critical toward Russian weapon systems.
Now i don't know where did you get these Zhuk AESA range numbers, as many different ones can be seen quoted in the press and other sources. Where that peak power number comes from?

Isos wrote:The nose cone isn't the issue. The issue is that mig-35 barely exist in real and in the papers it's just a mig-29M with an aesa radar.

They replaced the whole avionics and sensors. Try seeing pictures of the cockpits of both aircraft.

MiG-29M cockpit:


MiG-35 cockpit:

Arkanghelsk wrote:

But monopoly should be prevented , clean the MOD of whatever rats are there on the payroll of Sukhoi , and find out what kind of nepotism is going on in UAC  

Approving a modernization that uses old PESA radar with minimal upgrades is unacceptable to pass off as a serious upgrade, but sukhoi always does this and promises big things and under delivers , they did it with “su30sm2” just another cheap rename and rehash with minimal upgrades to say they actually did something

They are doing it with su34”NVO” promising all the bells and whistles, and in the end probably do nothing as not even a basic MAWS exists for this plane , it’s a fab carrier which any old su24 can do tbh - so just another unnecessary plane to grift off until s70 is ready

And hopefully they don’t do it with su57 , hopefully years from now all the stories of AL51 and Byelka are true, and they don’t just slap on a “super Irbis” or a super “al41” and call it 5th gen

That would be the cherry on top of the su75 fiasco

I agree with you that Su-30SM2 is BS with just basic upgrade of BARS-M. Idea where you would turn Su-30SM2 into two seater Su-35S is a very good one, as long as they hold the course (which means AL-41, Irbis-E, new avionics etc.). Su-34NVO was also just a mid-life upgrade ie. nothing serious and only Su-34M should be a real upgrade, but it looks like they are changing what was promised to be improved originally into watered down version. I'm not sure if all the blame should go to Sukhoi, as MoD is also known for shortchanging and asking for too much while trying to underpay. That is a part of the systemic problem where companies can't make enough margin in contracts with MoD and if exports are weak, not enough money is left for R&D and modernization of production and in some cases companies go under financial duress or take significant debt burden.

lancelot wrote:
MiG-29M cockpit:


MiG-35 cockpit:

The top picture is a very old configuration of the Mig29M.
The lower picture is said to be the modern day Mig-29K. If so the modern day Mig-29M2 will look identical to the above.
If it is the Mig-29K's cockpit - the Mig-35 would look very similar anyway.

Isos wrote:You can't prevent monopoly. Sukhoi was picked as the winner in the 90s because the su-27 had everything the mig-29 but in bigger so better suited for their huge territory.

Why ? Because they can't afford to buy huge quantities of different planes like in the USSR. Nowadays, they receive maybe 20-30 planes per year. That's not enough to have 2 or 3 companies making their own production lines for different planes.

Sukhoi is already ruling over the others that will just disappear. Mig is even more dead now that the west imposes sanctions on russian military hardware buyers. Market was already small and it will get even smaller. China and India are already almost done with new russian jets orders. Other small market can't order enough.

The su-57 will eat most of the RuAF budget for planes anyway. The ukro war and the terrible perf of su-30/34 will oblige them to invest in more sophisticated planes so numbers will fall since they are more expensive.

Frankly I wonder how Mig is still alive. They sold only few douzen planes last 35 years. The only product they came up with is the update mig-29M and its update the mig-35 which are mostly based on the mig-29M from the 90s already developed by the soviets. This company is burning public cash like no other IMO.

They sold 60 MiG-29M/M2 (50 for export). That is better than the Grippen ever did.

Where does the idea of Su-34 being bad performance come from?

It's the most used jet in Ukraine conflict and striking hard.ndoing what it was designed to do.

Then again, I'm talking to people who think they know better than a ministry of defense.

Lol GarryB again with those toys from Mig but su-75 is not a real plane

AFAIK neither have flown, but both are intended to be developed.

The MiG is for the Russian Navy, while the Su-75 is for export and the Russian AF said they will look at it when it is ready.

Mig 29/35 is a failure. No one will buy it when nato alligned countries are buying f-35.

HATO aligned countries can't buy F-22s, so essentially any F-35s in HATO country service would be facing Su-57s.

Against 4++ gen western fighters the MiG-35 has R-37M missiles that match or exceed the reach of any in service or suggested western long range AAM.

They either quickly start producing a single engine 5th gen fighter or they will go bankrupt.

How can they go bankrupt?

They are a department of OAK/UAC. Plus, what happens to the MiG-41 in that case?

The Russian military have said they will look at the Su-75 but they are not funding it... so which light 5th gen fighter are they funding?

The Algerian and Egyptian Migs are Mig-29M2's - not Mig-35's

In the case of Egypt they wanted MiG-35s... but clearly did not want to fund the initial period of service where all the bugs are revealed and solved and things like AESA production is matured.

Now, I didn't see instead a possibility of a direct competition of different NAPO on the same future or perspective model of plane like was in the old times but this is a more general problem than only Russia, modern planes are so complex that specialization in certain niches are in some way unavoidable.

The cost and time it takes to develop and produce a decent competitor makes it expensive and time consuming, so if you don't win in a couple of competitions then that can be incredibly damaging to your bottom line...

Certainly, there is still the fact that some productive capacities of the former conglomerate (the Sokol plant) are still unused but the same is true for what it came as an example for the former production plant of the Su-25UB in Alan Ude.

The point is that the production lines that have made 6 MiG-35s for Russian AF service is probably the same lines that made MiG-29Ks for the Indian Navy and the Russian Navy, and also upgraded Indian MiGs to their UTG standard, not to mention likely also produced MiG-29Ms for Algeria and Egypt.

Having that production line upgraded and put to work making 50 or 100 MiG-35s would be useful because those aircraft could be used as the basis for testing new technology intended for use in their new light 5th gen fighter, but could also produce said light 5th gen fighter prototypes too.

They could use the MiG-35 as a flying operational test bed for new systems and equipment while developing the new light fighter in the same way Sukhoi used Su-35s to test and deploy new technology and systems while developing it for the Su-57.

It is a more efficient use of resources.

Alexey Bulatov, Deputy Director of the UAC and Chief Designer of the Checkmate aircraft and Yuri Slyusar, General Director of the UAC.
Bulatov is obviously from Sukhoi. Yuri Slyusar has an impressive cv but NEVER served in Sukhoi. In the aircraft industry he served at Rostvertol.
Try to be factional.

So you are confirming what I said... of the general and deputy director of UAC, one served at Sukhoi... what a shock...

I didn't say all the UAC management were Sukhoi.

Yes keep on blaming someone else for Mig's problems!

When the Russian AF has Su-34s as CAS as well as strike planes and Su-30 and Su-35s and Su-57s and Su-75s then Sukhoi can make demands and make the Air Force dance to their tune. Cancel the PAK DA and just make the Su-34 bigger? Su-57 replacing MiG-31s?

Ka-52s scrapped because Su-29s could carry rocket pods and light bombs?

The only one's claiming AESA is the Mig-35 fan club, but it now appears that it is not fitted in the production version - so far...

So far. So they only made 6 but they didn't even make them complete?

That is not logical, if they didn't want to fund the AESA radar then why would they make the MiG-35 when they could make the MiG-29M instead... in much greater numbers.

Alexey Bulatov already indicated that Sukhoi's 6th gen fighters would move away from being multi-role and would be developed as single mission aircraft (with different variants) to curb the spiraling cost and complexity of these aircraft designs. I'm sure this trend will be followed by everyone else.

Hahaha... so an enormous step backwards... MiG-23 and MiG-27 stuff...

This model is clearly a rework of the Mig-141 if I'm not mistaken so I doubt it will be a "light fighter". It is probably aimed at being competition for the Su-57K in the medium to heavy class, but not as big as the Mig-141?

I have posted images of all three models and explained what they were.

There is a single engined light fighter to operate with the Su-57 in Russian AF use, a twin engined light 5th gen fighter for use on aircraft carriers to replace the MiG-29K and operate with the naval Su-57K, and an unmanned wingman type single engined drone.

You've shown many times that you're ready to misrepresent facts or take things out of the context in order to prove your point.

We don't know any of the facts that actually matter.

All aforementioned planes are in service with VKS for 10+ years and represent the present and not the future, as MiG-35 should be. Second, they all have PESA radars which are generation ahead of Zhuk-M. Especially IRBIS, which is a mixture between PESA and AESA tech.

So the customer... the Russian AF is not interested in funding and putting into service AESA radars on fighters in their current form.... the MiG-31 has had a PESA radar in service longer than the Su-27 has been operational, but the further advantages of AESA have not warranted any drive to get it into service faster.

It is amusing you all blame MiG because you claim the radar they don't make is not obviously in service.

For all we know the reason the MiG-35 is not in mass production is because they wanted to skip the 4++ gen light fighter and go straight to a light 5th gen fighter, but if that were the case you would think funding for new generation engines and radars would be fully funded because a 5th gen light fighter with a hybrid radar will get you ladies bunching up your panties in outrage.

Phazotron and rest don't make the TR modules. It's NPO Istok and 1 other company. Istok makes GaN and GaAS modules.

Which is not part of MiG either...

The issue is that mig-35 barely exist in real and in the papers it's just a mig-29M with an aesa radar.

So if the MiG-35 is a MiG-29M with an AESA radar and the MiG-35s they bought and put into service for testing don't have AESA radars then why didn't they just buy MiG-29Ms which are about 5 to 10 million dollars cheaper per airframe?

Anyway, pointless discussion. Until proof of the opposite, no one is buying the mig-35 neither is the RuAF.

It is not about whether it gets exported or not. If international customers want to pay more for Flankers and spend more on operational costs then that is their problem, I don't care. The problem for the Russian AF is the gaps in their forces because they don't have enough planes and they don't have enough planes because they are all big expensive flankers instead of smaller more useful types.

You can't prevent monopoly.

Of course you can. Don't give one company all the contracts... and in this case the Russian AF saying they will look at the Su-75 when it is ready suggests they are not funding it, so one could assume their funding for a new 5th gen light fighter is going somewhere else.

Generally they wont fund one project so they might be funding Yak and MiG to make light 5th gen fighters.

Money was tight with the Su-57 but they funded MiG and Sukhoi to develop prototypes to decide who would get funding for the final aircraft.

They are currently expanding their ground forces and will also be expanding their naval and air forces too and buying lots of big heavy fighters is too expensive to cover a large country.

Frankly I wonder how Mig is still alive. They sold only few douzen planes last 35 years. The only product they came up with is the update mig-29M and its update the mig-35 which are mostly based on the mig-29M from the 90s already developed by the soviets. This company is burning public cash like no other IMO.

Perhaps because you don't know what you are talking about and confuse opinion with fact?

Yes the market shifted to 5th gen, but there is still plenty of room to expand in 4++ segment, you can compete with F15X with your own cheap MiG35 - yeah not the same class - but then again neither was sukhoi vs gripen or Rafale

The MiG-35 with an AESA radar is a dangerous opponent and the F-15X is a very expensive aircraft. Going head to head the MiG-35 can already use the current long range R-37M air to air missile, and the new missile being developed to replace it will have even better range performance.

An F-15X is not stealthy so the MiG-35 should be able to detect it at extended range... especially if it is carrying all the weapons it is depicted with.

USAF experience in training with India led to them realising that the MIG-21 is a tricky opponent because it is physically smaller and easy to lose sight of.

250million per airframe F-15X aircraft vs MiG-35s costing 6 or 7 times less... the MiG could start by shooting down the enemy AWACS platforms using R-37M missiles, which puts the F-15 on the back foot right away.

lancelot wrote:
They sold 60 MiG-29M/M2 (50 for export). That is better than the Grippen ever did.

I count nearly a hundred export orders for the Grippen - including 12 leased?

sepheronx wrote:Where does the idea of Su-34 being bad performance come from?

It's the most used jet in Ukraine conflict and striking hard.ndoing what it was designed to do.

Then again, I'm talking to people who think they know better than a ministry of defense.

The problem with the Su-34 is clear as daylight - it should have been a Mig-34.

GarryB wrote:I didn't say all the UAC management were Sukhoi.

Are you sure?

GarryB wrote:When the managers of the Sukhoi department become the managers of UAC/OAK,

GarryB wrote:When the Russian AF has Su-34s as CAS as well as strike planes and Su-30 and Su-35s and Su-57s and Su-75s then Sukhoi can make demands and make the Air Force dance to their tune. Cancel the PAK DA and just make the Su-34 bigger? Su-57 replacing MiG-31s?

Ka-52s scrapped because Su-29s could carry rocket pods and light bombs?

So when did all this happen?

GarryB wrote:Hahaha... so an enormous step backwards... MiG-23 and MiG-27 stuff...

I think Bulatov has gone soft. Probably intended to give MiG a chance to get back in the game.

Isos wrote:They can't do anything alone anymore.

They couldn't do anything alone back then either.
Gripen is powered by US made engine and fires US or Euro made missiles using a radar derivating from Blue Vixen.  
The sole weapon system originated in Sweden is RBS15, but as for now, it is already a multinational cooperation of Saab and Diehl.
This was one of the nails to the coffin of its export potentials.
We can call a JAS39 consortium a project manager and general assembler.

Grippen's marketing company is BAE based in London

Yes, as Gripen International was a consortium with BAE made for exporting those.
And some parts have been made in the UK since.

sepheronx wrote:Where does the idea of Su-34 being bad performance come from?

From a fu#cked up Isos idea fix he repeats like some mantra.

Mir wrote:

lancelot wrote:They sold 60 MiG-29M/M2 (50 for export). That is better than the Grippen ever did.

I count nearly a hundred export orders for the Grippen - including 12 leased?

Are you counting undelivered planes? Are you counting E and F variants, which are basically a modification of the original airplane? Just like the MiG-35 is relative to MiG-29M.

I hope you see what I mean here.

sepheronx wrote:Where does the idea of Su-34 being bad performance come from?

It's the most used jet in Ukraine conflict and striking hard.ndoing what it was designed to do.

Then again, I'm talking to people who think they know better than a ministry of defense.

The negative comments that archangelsk had against the Su-34 were the main problems of his recent posts in this thread. Personally I love that duck

Otherwise other things mentioned in his post made sense.

Gripen does not make sense to be bought from a customer point of view. You ends up being dependent from at least Sweden, UK and US, and its acquisition will not even give you brownie points for the US protection and immunities (like those big acquisition of American products from Saudi Arabia).

And the Gripen is not better than a MiG-29M