First serial produced Mig-35's delivered

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

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3491
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 15:38

More at the jump..

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/artic ... -to-follow

As an F-35 counter, this is rather feeble. But against our legacy fighters it can't be under-estimated. They have some interesting systems, very high thrust to weight ratios, AESA radars and other advancements. The one thing they don't have (from other reports) is thrust vectoring. This is however, available as an option to anyone ordering Mig-35's.

That's an interesting departure, especially given their stated MO: Closing to the merge and winning the WVR fight. Just two squadrons initially, with options for follow on orders. I really doubt the Russians will buy more though. While very capable, the SU-30SM and SU-35 handily outperform it in most metrics. This is a showpiece in Russian service, for foreign operators of the Mig-29 to take note.

I find this analogous to us producing F-15EX's if it comes to that. Fun to see such successful fighters tricked up and capable of new things, but ultimately futile when the US could be building more F-35's. With no light stealth fighter to speak of, Russia's only option is more Mig-35's..
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1311
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 15:43

AESA is not standard, neither is TVC, and had only been prototyped. Mig-35 is an incremental advance on Mig-29 as it stands now.

p.s. militarywatchmagazine is a Kremlin mouthpiece so verify information coming from them.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1102
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 19:28

TVC is fir airshows, not for combat.
On the contrary, it increases weight and maintenance and decreases Main Time Between Failures.

So let us all shout : Add the TVC, Add the TVC, so we have fewer combat ready Mig-35 to worry about. LOL.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1070
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post19 Jun 2019, 03:02

vilters wrote:TVC is fir airshows, not for combat.
On the contrary, it increases weight and maintenance and decreases Main Time Between Failures.


We don't seem to have a problem with thrust vector on the F-22... whats the difference between ours (US) and their (Russia)?
Offline

firebase99

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 03 May 2017, 21:47

Unread post28 Jun 2019, 04:50

vilters wrote:TVC is fir airshows, not for combat.
On the contrary, it increases weight and maintenance and decreases Main Time Between Failures.

So let us all shout : Add the TVC, Add the TVC, so we have fewer combat ready Mig-35 to worry about. LOL.


IIRC, the TVC on the Raptor was designed in for its Super Cruise at 60K feet +....not REALLY for turnin' and burnin'.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2843
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post28 Jun 2019, 07:14

marsavian wrote:AESA is not standard, neither is TVC, and had only been prototyped. Mig-35 is an incremental advance on Mig-29 as it stands now.


That's true. Current MiG-35 is roughly equal to F/A-18C or F-16 Block 50 when it comes to avionics capabilities. Those became operational 25 years ago or so. Of course they are pretty nice improvement over current MiG-29s, but come very late to game. At least they need those AESA radars as a lot of Western and Chinese fighters have AESAs or are getting them soon.
Offline

knowan

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 258
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post28 Jun 2019, 14:41

The MiG-35 is essentially just a renamed MiG-29K for the Russian Air Force.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 441
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post29 Jun 2019, 18:10

firebase99 wrote:
vilters wrote:TVC is fir airshows, not for combat.
On the contrary, it increases weight and maintenance and decreases Main Time Between Failures.

So let us all shout : Add the TVC, Add the TVC, so we have fewer combat ready Mig-35 to worry about. LOL.


IIRC, the TVC on the Raptor was designed in for its Super Cruise at 60K feet +....not REALLY for turnin' and burnin'.


The "pedals" from the Engines are like additional rudders, and helps to maneuver in thin air.

Scorpion1alpha wrote:Like some already mentioned, TV enhances the F-22’s maneuvering performance at high speeds and high altitudes where the thin air (the regime the Raptor routinely operates at) renders control surfaces less effective. The F-22’s pedals can be considered two additional control surfaces; that and along with its other design features allows it to maneuver around up there like a slick F-16 at 20K. Get any other fighter up there with the F-22 and they'll struggle mightily.


hornetfinn wrote:That's true. Current MiG-35 is roughly equal to F/A-18C or F-16 Block 50 when it comes to avionics capabilities. Those became operational 25 years ago or so. Of course they are pretty nice improvement over current MiG-29s, but come very late to game. At least they need those AESA radars as a lot of Western and Chinese fighters have AESAs or are getting them soon.


The Mig-35 have to wait for an AESA at least to 2021. And the performance is not very impressive.


https://www.janes.com/article/84713/pha ... Ug57_8O4Sk
Offline

vladimir

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2019, 23:31
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post02 Nov 2019, 12:40

swiss wrote:
firebase99 wrote:
vilters wrote:TVC is fir airshows, not for combat.
On the contrary, it increases weight and maintenance and decreases Main Time Between Failures.

So let us all shout : Add the TVC, Add the TVC, so we have fewer combat ready Mig-35 to worry about. LOL.


IIRC, the TVC on the Raptor was designed in for its Super Cruise at 60K feet +....not REALLY for turnin' and burnin'.


The "pedals" from the Engines are like additional rudders, and helps to maneuver in thin air.

Scorpion1alpha wrote:Like some already mentioned, TV enhances the F-22’s maneuvering performance at high speeds and high altitudes where the thin air (the regime the Raptor routinely operates at) renders control surfaces less effective. The F-22’s pedals can be considered two additional control surfaces; that and along with its other design features allows it to maneuver around up there like a slick F-16 at 20K. Get any other fighter up there with the F-22 and they'll struggle mightily.


hornetfinn wrote:That's true. Current MiG-35 is roughly equal to F/A-18C or F-16 Block 50 when it comes to avionics capabilities. Those became operational 25 years ago or so. Of course they are pretty nice improvement over current MiG-29s, but come very late to game. At least they need those AESA radars as a lot of Western and Chinese fighters have AESAs or are getting them soon.


The Mig-35 have to wait for an AESA at least to 2021. And the performance is not very impressive.


https://www.janes.com/article/84713/pha ... Ug57_8O4Sk



It has 'unimpressive performance' only in your head and in the 'National Interest' magazine ANALysis. :D

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... d-avionics

MAKS 2019: Refined MiG-35 Gets New Missiles and Avionics

Image

According to Tarasenko, the new version features further-refined geometry of the airframe, uprated Klimov RD-33MK engines with thrust at full afterburner of nine tonnes, an advanced electro-optical reconnaissance system, and an active-array (AESA) radar capable of tracking up to 30 targets simultaneously. Additionally, RAC MiG’s press release also mentions “renewed mission equipment” and “other improvements made to meet the requirements of potential foreign customers."

Vympel R-37, also known as RVV-BD, the Russian acronym for “air-to-air missile, long-range.” Although the possibility of the MiG-35 being outfitted with the 300-km (162-nm) R-37 was first mentioned a couple of years ago, MAKS 2019 was the first time that the aircraft had been displayed with this weapon.

RAC MiG hopes to win a new Indian Navy order if the earlier announced tender for 57 deck fighters proceeds. They would equip the navy’s new carrier, Vishal, construction of which is yet to start.


https://www.aircosmosinternational.com/ ... or-uavs-55

Thus, in order to optimize the chances to export the Mig-35, Phazotron has developed a new Aesa radar with a range of 170 km — the Zhuk AE-AR. Most of all, Phazotron developed, in cooperation with the Bauman Moscow State Technical University, a multifunction radar for UAVs of 35 kg working in Ku band and not in X band as its Western competitors. With its weather modes, the radiolocalisation, altimetry and GMTI, its SAR imagery capability of a range of 80 km could reach a resolution of 25 cm. The use of the Ku band should enable it to resist to most of the NATO jamming systems.


We don't know exact performances, but from all the available info we can realistically assume first AESA-fitted MiG-35s will be delivered to the Russian Air Force in 2020 and those radars will have 1000+ T/R modules, 200km range against 4G fighter size aircraft (according to some info 260km), it will be lightweight and it will have SAR resolution 0,1m from 20km and 0,25m from 80km.
We can't see the future, but we can realistically assume hundreds of MiG-35s will be sold around the world during the 2020s, just like hundreds of MIG-29M/SMT/UBT/K/KUBs fitted with non-AESA Zhuk-ME radars were previously ordered by Russia, but also by India, Egypt, Algeria, Yemen, Peru during the 2000s and 2010s.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3309
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post02 Nov 2019, 19:45

Why are we assuming 200km to 260km, when the link says 170km? Those numbers are unlikely, as they'd be superior to the Su-35, which has a look down detection range of 170km and look up detection range of 190km.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 836
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post02 Nov 2019, 21:14

wrightwing wrote:Why are we assuming 200km to 260km, when the link says 170km? Those numbers are unlikely, as they'd be superior to the Su-35, which has a look down detection range of 170km and look up detection range of 190km.


https://i41.servimg.com/u/f41/09/01/13/73/phazot12.jpg

And MiG-35 presented on MAKS 2019 have 200km range for fighter targets.

Su-35 radar isn't AESA and its max range is lot better then 190km for 3m2. It is 350-400km in narrow search mode. Here is video of radar detecting four targets probable ordinary radar target Russia use:

http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-sys ... ogies/dan/

equiped with lens (1.4m2 to 3.6m2 RCS)

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cieLN4_tn0A

Speed of scanning could indicate narrow scan mode.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3309
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post02 Nov 2019, 23:13

milosh wrote:
wrightwing wrote:Why are we assuming 200km to 260km, when the link says 170km? Those numbers are unlikely, as they'd be superior to the Su-35, which has a look down detection range of 170km and look up detection range of 190km.


https://i41.servimg.com/u/f41/09/01/13/73/phazot12.jpg

And MiG-35 presented on MAKS 2019 have 200km range for fighter targets.

Su-35 radar isn't AESA and its max range is lot better then 190km for 3m2. It is 350-400km in narrow search mode. Here is video of radar detecting four targets probable ordinary radar target Russia use:

http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-sys ... ogies/dan/

equiped with lens (1.4m2 to 3.6m2 RCS)

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cieLN4_tn0A

Speed of scanning could indicate narrow scan mode.


The 350-400km range is a 10°x10° cued search. In a full volume, non-cued search, it's 170km/190km vs a 3m^2 target. Those >200km ranges were in narrow scan mode.
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 859
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post03 Nov 2019, 02:32

vladimir wrote:It has 'unimpressive performance' only in your head and in the 'National Interest' magazine ANALysis. :D

No, it only has an impressive performance according to some unverified source. :roll:
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 836
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post03 Nov 2019, 10:33

wrightwing wrote:The 350-400km range is a 10°x10° cued search. In a full volume, non-cued search, it's 170km/190km vs a 3m^2 target. Those >200km ranges were in narrow scan mode.


And what I wrote? I wrote two times "narrow scan mode". I never find info about wider search mode ranges. Russians always use that narrow mode for their modern PESA radars as official range data.

What I find strange is why others not use same mode, I mean PESA and AESA radars have super fast scanning so narrow scan isn't problem as it would be with MESA radars. Maybe some other things are problem.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3309
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post03 Nov 2019, 20:51

milosh wrote:
wrightwing wrote:The 350-400km range is a 10°x10° cued search. In a full volume, non-cued search, it's 170km/190km vs a 3m^2 target. Those >200km ranges were in narrow scan mode.


And what I wrote? I wrote two times "narrow scan mode". I never find info about wider search mode ranges. Russians always use that narrow mode for their modern PESA radars as official range data.

What I find strange is why others not use same mode, I mean PESA and AESA radars have super fast scanning so narrow scan isn't problem as it would be with MESA radars. Maybe some other things are problem.

Narrow cued search = soda straw field of view + slower scan rate = you're not going to find targets on your own = a worthless performance metric. Others do use narrow cued searches. They just don't make claims about those being representative of the actual detection range, especially when they also use a 50% probability of detection standard. When you see western specs, they're using a 90% probability of detection standard.
Next

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hythelday and 17 guests