SU-57 deployed to Syria

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

gideonic

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 242
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2015, 13:54

Unread post14 Jun 2018, 08:20

The current Mig-35 is actually just a "land version" of the Mig-29K. So no thrust-vectoring nor AESA
Offline

gc

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 20 May 2015, 02:12

Unread post14 Jun 2018, 13:41

Russia, fanboys and press: Sukhoi fighters are invincible and affordable. US fighters are weak and expensive.
Reality: https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/st ... 2018-06-13
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2110
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post14 Jun 2018, 14:08

gc wrote:Russia, fanboys and press: Sukhoi fighters are invincible and affordable. US fighters are weak and expensive.
Reality: https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/st ... 2018-06-13


That's a very interesting point. You always hear about how Sukhoi/Mig's are perhaps 1/3 as expensive as western birds. You never hear about the fact they require 3x's the maintenance. I was always under the impression the Indians were very happy with the SU-30MKI, as it allowed them to go toe to toe with anyone (including USAF).

If this is true, it spells big problems for Russian export aircraft. Because when your biggest (if not one of the biggest) customer isn't interested in procuring more of your aircraft... We may have reached the tipping point in Russia no longer being a major arms exporter of high performance military aircraft...
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2110
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post14 Jun 2018, 14:12

gideonic wrote:The current Mig-35 is actually just a "land version" of the Mig-29K. So no thrust-vectoring nor AESA


The whole Mig-35 upgrade is entirely misleading then. An up engined, thrust vectoring Mig-29 with 50% greater range and an AESA should be an incredibly capable aircraft. Yet, the Russians themselves are opting for no thrust vectoring and no AESA. It appears to have more wing area, a more robust frame and capable of carrying heavier loads further. But that comparison inevitably leads you to the Flanker family, and all of a sudden the Mig-35's range, payload and agility don't compare very favorably...,,
Offline

collimatrix

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 138
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 15:27

Unread post14 Jun 2018, 21:34

The Russian order of MiG-35s looks like welfare to keep the MiG design bureau alive long enough for it to develop something that people would actually want to buy.

Not only is the MiG-35 a fourth-generation aircraft, it's easily the second or third least capable fourth-generation aircraft after Gripen and FC-17, and it doesn't have the virtue as being as cheap as those two. I'm not counting advanced trainers that moonlight as fighters, obviously.

MiG-35s are conventionally stable, which usually works out to something like a 10% hit to lift/drag ratio, they're much heavier than earlier MiG-29 variants and their engines haven't been uprated enough to make up the difference, so it sacrifices the old Fulcrum's thrust to weight ratio which was one of the key strengths of the type. On the flip side, they do at least have a much better avionics fit and more internal fuel than the old MiG-29s, which partially remedies one of the big weaknesses of the type.

The price reductions Lockheed Martin announced for the F-35 are really putting the screws on the fighter market. Nations that have a choice between Western as well as Russian and Chinese fighters won't even pause in their decision. Nations that can't buy Western have the choice of various Flanker variants, and the Chinese FC-20 might be available soon, and both of those options are clearly more capable than the MiG-35.

MiG had better be working on something more impressive, because they're not going to stay in the game if this is their best shot.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2362
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post15 Jun 2018, 07:13

mixelflick wrote:
gc wrote:Russia, fanboys and press: Sukhoi fighters are invincible and affordable. US fighters are weak and expensive.
Reality: https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/st ... 2018-06-13


That's a very interesting point. You always hear about how Sukhoi/Mig's are perhaps 1/3 as expensive as western birds. You never hear about the fact they require 3x's the maintenance. I was always under the impression the Indians were very happy with the SU-30MKI, as it allowed them to go toe to toe with anyone (including USAF).

If this is true, it spells big problems for Russian export aircraft. Because when your biggest (if not one of the biggest) customer isn't interested in procuring more of your aircraft... We may have reached the tipping point in Russia no longer being a major arms exporter of high performance military aircraft...


When Finland did last fighter competition in early 1990s, MiG-29 was one candidate and was seriously considered and also seriously offered by Russia. Others were F-16C, F/A-18C/D, JAS Gripen and Mirage 2000-5. It was found that MiG-29 was the most expensive aircraft to buy and operate. It was about 10-20 percent more expensive to buy and about twice as expensive to operate. Another serious problem would've been that it had half the service life of other candidates (15 yrs vs 30 yrs). So it would've been twice as expensive aircraft with half the service life meaning it would've cost 3-4 times more in real life. It also had easily the least capable avionics and electronics with limited capabilities and no real multi-role capability.

It's likely that Su-27 derivatives have similar problems. Sure later versions of both MiG-29 and Su-27 have made improvements in all areas, but are still not up to western standards in many areas. It's likely that maintenance requirements and costs are still higher than in Western equipment. Service lives are also shorter even with the latest kit.
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 593
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post18 Jun 2018, 05:18

collimatrix wrote:MiG had better be working on something more impressive, because they're not going to stay in the game if this is their best shot.


I've been under the impression that, domestically, MiG has lost out to Sukhoi, and that export-wise their only strength has been that the MiG-29K is a bit more carrier-suitable than the Su-33 seems to be.

LMFS seems to be all but dead from open sources.
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline

babybat{}.net

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 24
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2017, 19:16

Unread post22 Jun 2018, 10:20

rheonomic wrote:
I've been under the impression that, domestically, MiG has lost out to Sukhoi, and that export-wise their only strength has been that the MiG-29K is a bit more carrier-suitable than the Su-33 seems to be.



The question of which aircraft is better suited for an aircraft carrier is not so unambiguous. Su fighters occupy slightly more space in the hangar than the mig-29k due to a different folding mechanism. But Su fighters have better characteristics.
The choice was made in favor of Mig-29k, because it was already created for Indian NAVY.
The new version of the Su-33 was supposed to be created for PLA NAVY, but the Chinese created it themselves (j-15), buying a prototype of the Su-33 in Ukraine. For this reason, a new version of the Su-33 was not created, and the fleet of existing machines underwent a modernization under the «Hephaestus» program.

rheonomic wrote:LMFS seems to be all but dead from open sources.


The LMFS program, as well as the PAK-DP program (replacement of Mig-31, and possibly Tu-22m3) is continued at the expense of the company's own funds. Last year, it was announced that the first prototype LMFS will make the first flight until 2025.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2110
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post22 Jun 2018, 13:43

I really hope Mig gets it in gear with this LMFS. I've seen several artist concepts, but it's hard to believe the rubles are going to be there for it, given so many other supposed big ticket items.

Had Russia pursued an LMFS type circa 2000 vs. the PAK FA, they'd be in a much better place today. Perhaps still lacking in stealth, but at least the cost/logistical footprint would be a lot more manageable. This concept below looks intriguing, but it's been a long time since the Russians have opted for a single engine bird (Mig-23?) I wonder if they have the confidence to do it, especially given the presumed supercruise requirement?
Attachments
Mig LMFS.jpg
Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 768
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post22 Jun 2018, 13:45

Face it: Russia, with all its drinking and corruption issues placed itself out of the market.

If you "invest" 15 dollar over there?
5 go to alcohol,
5 go to pay off some "friends" (or to keep friends as friends)
3 for yourself in bad times
1 is left for material cost
1 is left for R&D.

Oh, they get something done?
Well, they would not get their next 15 dollar if they left you with nothing, right?

Their 6th gen fighter is probably build out of wood mixed with some gas and oil left-overs.
Ach, they can always cut down the Siberian forest and sell the wood to N-Korea.

In brief : Russia's "great times" are over, and done with.
Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 768
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post22 Jun 2018, 13:49

[quote="mixelflick"]I really hope Mig gets it in gear with this LMFS. I've seen several artist concepts, but it's hard to believe the rubles are going to be there for it, given so many other supposed big ticket items.


Even if they manage to build the airframe?
They have no engine for it.
They don't have the avionix. (Not even 4th gen)

Overall and as you wrote: 20 years too late.
Offline

babybat{}.net

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 24
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2017, 19:16

Unread post22 Jun 2018, 17:37

mixelflick wrote:I really hope Mig gets it in gear with this LMFS. I've seen several artist concepts, but it's hard to believe the rubles are going to be there for it, given so many other supposed big ticket items.

Had Russia pursued an LMFS type circa 2000 vs. the PAK FA, they'd be in a much better place today. Perhaps still lacking in stealth, but at least the cost/logistical footprint would be a lot more manageable?



Initially, it was planned that a new (medium) fighter would replace both types of vehicles (both su-27 and mig-29). In the tender for the I-21 program (2001), both Sukhoi Design Bureau and Mikoyan Design Bureau participated. In 2002, it was announced the victory of the T-50 project. The machine that Mikoyan offered to tender is still classified

mixelflick wrote:This concept below looks intriguing, but it's been a long time since the Russians have opted for a single engine bird (Mig-23?) I wonder if they have the confidence to do it, especially given the presumed supercruise requirement?


Of course, the promising LMFS will be twin engine like J-31, AMCA, TFX, KFX(IFX) and X-2
Image
Offline

juretrn

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 292
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post22 Jun 2018, 22:02

Man, if you can tell from that model it's supposed to be a twin engine...
Russia stronk
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2110
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post23 Jun 2018, 14:29

juretrn wrote:Man, if you can tell from that model it's supposed to be a twin engine...


Let's say it is.. The question I'd have then, is why? Apparently it wasn't an issue with the Mig 21 or 23. But as soon as the Mig-29 and SU-27 appeared, they went back to twin engine designs. They seem enamored with widely spaced engine nacelles, the "tunnel" between them and blended wing/body designs. I get the fact that kind of airframe carries a lot of gas, but engines are the most expensive part of an aircraft, yes?

It just doesn't make any sense IMO. Single engine birds will be lighter, cheaper and presumably more $ could be put into integrated avionics and SA, where they're also having great difficulty. Once you've settled on a twin engine design, you're baking in expense on top of expense..
Offline

gtg947h

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 188
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2008, 16:52

Unread post23 Jun 2018, 17:46

mixelflick wrote:The question I'd have then, is why? Apparently it wasn't an issue with the Mig 21 or 23. But as soon as the Mig-29 and SU-27 appeared, they went back to twin engine designs. They seem enamored with widely spaced engine nacelles, the "tunnel" between them and blended wing/body designs. I get the fact that kind of airframe carries a lot of gas, but engines are the most expensive part of an aircraft, yes?

It just doesn't make any sense IMO. Single engine birds will be lighter, cheaper and presumably more $ could be put into integrated avionics and SA, where they're also having great difficulty. Once you've settled on a twin engine design, you're baking in expense on top of expense..


Engines are expensive (though maybe not the most expensive part)... but it's going to fall back on mission requirements. If you have some kind of survivability requirement, or some need to make long flights away from a landing area (see Canada's thinking with the original F-18 purchase), you might need that second engine.

Or, perhaps you lack the ability to make an engine of the appropriate thrust level in the time frame you'd need it. If your single-engine design needs an engine with 45klb thrust and you only have engines that make 30k, well...
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pmi and 9 guests