By: TR1
- 6th February 2011 at 05:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hard to compare electronics, if MiG-35 can get OLS-K, Zhuk-AE, SOLO and SOAR development done, it becomes tricky to say who has overall avionics advantage. Super Hornet has avionics maturity ofc, MiG-35 has not been inducted.
By: TR1
- 6th February 2011 at 06:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Promote its export? Of course.
Buy it? There have been repeated mentions time and time again that they intend to buy a batch of 20-30 fighters before 2015, and potentially another similar batch after. Will this happen? Who knows.
By: Kopyo-21
- 6th February 2011 at 06:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
New MiG-35 (967) picture. 4 Kh-29 and 2 R-77...
A very sexy fighter. Could any one tell me what capacity of the fuselage drop tank carried by Mig-35 in the photo above is? It seems to be bigger than the normal 1500L one but I am not sure if it is 2000L one.
By: Austin
- 6th February 2011 at 09:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Promote its export? Of course.
Buy it? There have been repeated mentions time and time again that they intend to buy a batch of 20-30 fighters before 2015, and potentially another similar batch after. Will this happen? Who knows.
I think by MAKS 11 we should have some idea on how much Mig-29K/35 variant will RuAF/Navy will buy.
Considering they wont create a 5th gen light LMFS , it would make sense they invest their resource in developing and upgrading Mig-29/35 types for low cost and to add numbers.
Plus what ever they make from Mig-35/29K exports is just bonus.
By: Snow Monkey
- 6th February 2011 at 16:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I feel like Russia should join India´s AMCA as a development partner.
Let India lead the program, if they fund the majority of it, developing whichever parts they wish.
Russia would develop sub-systems within it´s remit, likely playing off of PAK-FA developments. Developing Russia-specific variant without certain foreign sub-systems that India may select, with full access to the design to allow full Russian production / export at-will (within JV agreement / licencing fees to HAL).
By: TR1
- 6th February 2011 at 19:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I feel like Russia should join India´s AMCA as a development partner.
Let India lead the program, if they fund the majority of it, developing whichever parts they wish.
Russia would develop sub-systems within it´s remit, likely playing off of PAK-FA developments. Developing Russia-specific variant without certain foreign sub-systems that India may select, with full access to the design to allow full Russian production / export at-will (within JV agreement / licencing fees to HAL).
Anyhow, that´s another thread... :-)
No offense, but that has zero chance of happening. Take one look at Tejas, Russia has nothing to gain from being a minor partner in an Indian-lead aviation project like AMCA. Just reality.
What I want to see is the transport projects between the two countries come to fruition.
By: uss novice
- 6th February 2011 at 20:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hard to compare electronics, if MiG-35 can get OLS-K, Zhuk-AE, SOLO and SOAR development done, it becomes tricky to say who has overall avionics advantage. Super Hornet has avionics maturity ofc, MiG-35 has not been inducted.
Also, SH has 14 pylons? Really?
Scratch that - it is 11 hps. Another mistake I made is the empty weight of the fulcrum - that should be 11600kg and not 10600kg. Also the number of hps should be 9 for the 35.
As far as electronics are concerned, as of now, the edge is clearly in favor of the shornet, the AESA being the biggest concern for the 35. Another advantage the Shornet has is the ELS system, which allows it to detect RF targets passively. I believe the fulcrum could carry a pod to compensate but then that is a waste of 1 pylon. Then there is the towed decoy. IMHO, the Shornet is certainly a more complete package when it comes to such matters.
The way I see it, if we decide to compare a potentially complete 35 (1064 TRM Zhuk A, internal EW suite etc) with the Shornet, it would only be fair to compare it with a souped up Shornet as well (EPE engines + nose mounted IRST, both of which are on offer for the MRCA race). Here, the airframe performance of the Shornet will certainly catch up to the 35. The TWR provided by 25 tons of thrust would certainly leave the MiG behind. It'll be interesting to see how the jury rigged airframe handles that much power though, esp. the outward canted pylons!
By: TR1
- 6th February 2011 at 20:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The difference is the MiG-35 is already flying with the 1064 element AESA, most of those SH advances are not yet implemented. Anyways lots of ifs and whens in this discussion, both good aircraft at the end of the day.
By: matt
- 6th February 2011 at 20:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
is there a problem with the Mig 35 OLS system? I am loving the concept of 360 IR detection ability, it is such a same that this is not on the Indian Mig-29s but they will be in service another few years so plenty of time I suppose.
By: uss novice
- 6th February 2011 at 21:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
TR1, I thought that the IRST on the 35/29K was provided by NIIPP and not UOMZ? Anyways, they have managed to make the 1064 TRM equipped fulcrum fly? Any pics?
By: TR1
- 6th February 2011 at 21:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
TR1, I thought that the IRST on the 35/29K was provided by NIIPP and not UOMZ? Anyways, they have managed to make the 1064 TRM equipped fulcrum fly? Any pics?
USS.
I am pretty sure you are right about NIIPP, but UOMZ was responsible for SOLO, SOAR, and OLS-K (I think), hence when problems about UOMZ in the MiG-35 program were revealed, the latter 3 were removed from the flying prototypes. Situation is confusing tbh, I have seen repeated mention that NIIP was responsible for the systems, then UOMZ, but as I said the removal of the systems and the trouble UOMZ got into with both MiG-35 and Ka-52 programs leads me to think the fault is with them, not any NIIP systems.
The general consensus on Russian forums has been the 1064 Zhuk-AE is flying on one of the MiG-29K converted MiG-35 testbeds, with the reprofiled nose. The new radar flying is also mentioned here: http://www.aex.ru/imgupl/Aviaindustria_02-10_fin_low.pdf
Cheers,
TR1
Let me add something on: Apparently NIIP designed much of the removed avionics, but UOMZ produced them? If the problem is in UOMZ production, hopefully they can bring NIIP production online.
By: Sintra
- 8th August 2011 at 13:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The difference is the MiG-35 is already flying with the 1064 element AESA, most of those SH advances are not yet implemented. Anyways lots of ifs and whens in this discussion, both good aircraft at the end of the day.
Could you give more some more specifics about the "MiG-35 is already flying with the 1064 element AESA" (cant read Russian)?
AFAIK, two months ago this particular radar (the 1064 TRM´s Zhuk) had not been instaled on an aircraft, much less flown.
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 6th February 2011 at 05:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hard to compare electronics, if MiG-35 can get OLS-K, Zhuk-AE, SOLO and SOAR development done, it becomes tricky to say who has overall avionics advantage. Super Hornet has avionics maturity ofc, MiG-35 has not been inducted.
Also, SH has 14 pylons? Really?
Posts: 6,186
By: Austin - 6th February 2011 at 06:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Will RuAF ever buy the Mig-35 or promote its export else where if it looses the Indian MMRCA tender ?
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 6th February 2011 at 06:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Promote its export? Of course.
Buy it? There have been repeated mentions time and time again that they intend to buy a batch of 20-30 fighters before 2015, and potentially another similar batch after. Will this happen? Who knows.
Posts: 198
By: Kopyo-21 - 6th February 2011 at 06:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A very sexy fighter. Could any one tell me what capacity of the fuselage drop tank carried by Mig-35 in the photo above is? It seems to be bigger than the normal 1500L one but I am not sure if it is 2000L one.
The 2000L fuselage drop tank
Posts: 6,186
By: Austin - 6th February 2011 at 09:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think by MAKS 11 we should have some idea on how much Mig-29K/35 variant will RuAF/Navy will buy.
Considering they wont create a 5th gen light LMFS , it would make sense they invest their resource in developing and upgrading Mig-29/35 types for low cost and to add numbers.
Plus what ever they make from Mig-35/29K exports is just bonus.
Posts: 840
By: Snow Monkey - 6th February 2011 at 16:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I feel like Russia should join India´s AMCA as a development partner.
Let India lead the program, if they fund the majority of it, developing whichever parts they wish.
Russia would develop sub-systems within it´s remit, likely playing off of PAK-FA developments. Developing Russia-specific variant without certain foreign sub-systems that India may select, with full access to the design to allow full Russian production / export at-will (within JV agreement / licencing fees to HAL).
Anyhow, that´s another thread... :-)
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 6th February 2011 at 19:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No offense, but that has zero chance of happening. Take one look at Tejas, Russia has nothing to gain from being a minor partner in an Indian-lead aviation project like AMCA. Just reality.
What I want to see is the transport projects between the two countries come to fruition.
Posts: 3,538
By: quadbike - 6th February 2011 at 20:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When it comes to ToT and developing stuff from scratch India looks toward the west. Tejas/Arjun etc are examples.
Posts: 1,071
By: uss novice - 6th February 2011 at 20:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Scratch that - it is 11 hps. Another mistake I made is the empty weight of the fulcrum - that should be 11600kg and not 10600kg. Also the number of hps should be 9 for the 35.
As far as electronics are concerned, as of now, the edge is clearly in favor of the shornet, the AESA being the biggest concern for the 35. Another advantage the Shornet has is the ELS system, which allows it to detect RF targets passively. I believe the fulcrum could carry a pod to compensate but then that is a waste of 1 pylon. Then there is the towed decoy. IMHO, the Shornet is certainly a more complete package when it comes to such matters.
The way I see it, if we decide to compare a potentially complete 35 (1064 TRM Zhuk A, internal EW suite etc) with the Shornet, it would only be fair to compare it with a souped up Shornet as well (EPE engines + nose mounted IRST, both of which are on offer for the MRCA race). Here, the airframe performance of the Shornet will certainly catch up to the 35. The TWR provided by 25 tons of thrust would certainly leave the MiG behind. It'll be interesting to see how the jury rigged airframe handles that much power though, esp. the outward canted pylons!
USS.
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 6th February 2011 at 20:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The difference is the MiG-35 is already flying with the 1064 element AESA, most of those SH advances are not yet implemented. Anyways lots of ifs and whens in this discussion, both good aircraft at the end of the day.
Posts: 4,441
By: matt - 6th February 2011 at 20:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
is there a problem with the Mig 35 OLS system? I am loving the concept of 360 IR detection ability, it is such a same that this is not on the Indian Mig-29s but they will be in service another few years so plenty of time I suppose.
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 6th February 2011 at 20:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There have been problems with the UOMZ contribution to the project yes. Not sure what the status is right now.
Posts: 1,071
By: uss novice - 6th February 2011 at 21:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
TR1, I thought that the IRST on the 35/29K was provided by NIIPP and not UOMZ? Anyways, they have managed to make the 1064 TRM equipped fulcrum fly? Any pics?
USS.
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 6th February 2011 at 21:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I am pretty sure you are right about NIIPP, but UOMZ was responsible for SOLO, SOAR, and OLS-K (I think), hence when problems about UOMZ in the MiG-35 program were revealed, the latter 3 were removed from the flying prototypes. Situation is confusing tbh, I have seen repeated mention that NIIP was responsible for the systems, then UOMZ, but as I said the removal of the systems and the trouble UOMZ got into with both MiG-35 and Ka-52 programs leads me to think the fault is with them, not any NIIP systems.
The general consensus on Russian forums has been the 1064 Zhuk-AE is flying on one of the MiG-29K converted MiG-35 testbeds, with the reprofiled nose. The new radar flying is also mentioned here:
http://www.aex.ru/imgupl/Aviaindustria_02-10_fin_low.pdf
Cheers,
TR1
Let me add something on: Apparently NIIP designed much of the removed avionics, but UOMZ produced them? If the problem is in UOMZ production, hopefully they can bring NIIP production online.
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 6th February 2011 at 23:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://photojets.narod.ru/photo/mig/mig29k9-41-008.jpg
Oh lord, them zig-zags.
Posts: 51
By: flightman - 8th August 2011 at 12:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Test for airrefueling with MiG-29K and MiG-35.
(click for large version)
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 8th August 2011 at 13:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Could you give more some more specifics about the "MiG-35 is already flying with the 1064 element AESA" (cant read Russian)?
AFAIK, two months ago this particular radar (the 1064 TRM´s Zhuk) had not been instaled on an aircraft, much less flown.
Cheers
Posts: 262
By: 35 AoA - 9th August 2011 at 03:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Guess the Russians liked the Rhino so much they just had to have a 5 wet organic tanker of their own :)
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 9th August 2011 at 07:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How much fuel would the mig configuration above with four DT contain?
Edit: More important, is those DT, the same as Su-35S and Su-34 use?
Posts: 3,538
By: quadbike - 9th August 2011 at 09:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would like to see how MIG 29K with 1064 element Zhuk AE and R 77/R73E will do against Super Hornet Block II :)