There is a lot of misunderstanding of how flight test programs work. An airplane's design is verified in stages.
A first-of-type flight test airplane is not intended to be stealthy. The first test jet is used to demonstrate flying qualities and propulsion performance and carries a lot of unique instrumentation. The first jet will have no LO materials, mission systems or weapons systems. Until the first jet proves it can be flown safely, no other jets of that type will be flown. Several other test jets will be used to validate LO, mission systems and weapons. The numerous antennas and air scoops evident on the first jet indicate readily-available substitute equipment is presently installed. As the design is validated over the series of hundreds of test flights, the substitute equipment will be gradually replaced by final kit as it gets closer to the time when it is approved for production.
[USER="40268"]blackwood[/USER] - The reveal picture of the static test frame published last year shows the final design. It has what is sometimes called a platypus type exhaust. These types of exhaust nozzles have shown themselves to be a maintenance headache in US designs. So they started flight tests of the drone without it (because they don't need it for that - as djcross pointed out) while they do materials research to try to avoid that outcome.
It will be interesting to see how quickly this project develops. I'm guessing its service date is more than 5 years out, but we'll see.
New
Posts: 376
By: panzerfeist1
- 8th August 2019 at 13:53Permalink
su-57 First flyable prototype; first flight on 29 January 2010. In 2012, became the first prototype to be equipped with AESA radar, first tested in flight on 8 August 2012.
I know they have been test flying different prototypes with the SU-57s but is it a fair estimate that it will take 2.5 years until they go test the radar? Or will it be less than that because the focus is just on one drone instead of 1 su-57 prototype will be tested for flight and the 3rd prototype coming out will be tested for radar?
The Maks 2009 airshow showed the prototype radar of the su-57 and the side x-band radars were shown in the maks 2013 airshow. So I am estimating that atleast in this upcoming airshow they might show the radar and we can only pray that they would show the full set of avionics as well. But at least its safe to assume this drone will use the S-111 datalink. I hope we get a news source later either saying we will conduct multiple flight tests or test the radar/avionics in this given time frame like they recently did with its hops and flight tests.
Its amazing how some sites are saying its not fully stealth because of the nozzle and air inlets etc.
All i can say is that its as stealthy or more then a F-35.
So basically those critics are saying the F-35 is not stealthy enough. The nozzle can be made into the next gen nozzle later or engine etc. The inlets are above the plane and probably made from stealth materials with back scater design. If its rcs is as good or better then a F-35 then its achieved what it has to. If they can produce them in hundreds it takes away the advantage that large numbers of F-35 have.
My suggestion is to stop reading those sites.
They offer basically nothing of value... nothing beyond that which a teenaged armchair analyst could do.
Djcross has summarised it neatly...it's a prototype to be used for flight validation initially.
By: BlackArcher
- 13th August 2019 at 00:14Permalink
beat me to it Austin. Air Marshal Harish Masand's praise of the MiG-29 is truly fulsome. I also know from interaction with some IAF people in the past, that the MiG-29 truly was considered a fabulous jet aerodynamically, but it fell short on the way the information was presented to the pilot and the resulting situational awareness. Something that was a result of the Soviet GCI based piloting philosophy. And those were the key factors that the SMT and UPG upgrades addressed- the high pilot workload and the poor SA and of course the lower internal fuel volume.
I wish someone would give us an insight into how much improvement the SMT or UPG versions have over the older MiG-29A or the MiG-29M that lacked the improved cockpit avionics and radar and increased onboard fuel, but probably had lower empty weights and consequently slightly better T/W ratio.
From what I read the first 40's bought in 80's were the first export model of Mig-29A exported to any country , India was the first one to have it.
The 20 purchased in mid 90's where modified variant with ability to fire R-77 which were consequently upgraded to earlier variant ....... The oldest cockpit I saw has a single CRT display on the right side.
Then came the Mig-29M in early 2000's with 4 HP carrying R-77 on each wing , 2 LCD cockpit display HOTAS and ability to fire some type of A2G variant Kh-31 etc , Then came the M2 , then K for IN and finally Mig-35.
The internal fuel was doubled compared to earlier 29A variant , Introduction of low smoke RD-33 series 3 etc was progressively added. Also was added dorsal drop tank as seen on Mig-29UPG.
The first 29A focussed on point defence AD and hence had the best TW ratio , The later model from 29M was more multirole capability higher internal fuel etc , I think the RD-33 engine received thrust upgrade too and life was extended.
All said and done the latest statement from Deputy RuAF chief states Mig-35 Operating cost is 1.5 times lower than modern Sukhoi family
Seems from RuAF Deputy chief statement PAK-FA has supercruise capability with current engine
- You have already mentioned in our conversation the aircraft of generation 4 ++ MiG-35 and 5th generation Su-57, which are now being tested. Tell us what opportunities do they have? How are the tests and when can they be expected in the army?
- The main difference between the MiG-35 and the multifunctional aircraft of the 4 ++ Su-30SM and Su-35S generations already in service is efficiency. The cost of its flight hour is about one and a half times lower than that of modern aircraft of the Sukhoi family.
The Su-57 is distinguished by multifunctionality, super maneuverability, a mode of long supersonic cruising flight, maximum automation of aircraft control processes and the use of weapons. In its capabilities, it surpasses the 5th generation aircraft of foreign air forces.
It is planned to complete state tests of the MiG-35 at the end of 2021, and the Su-57 this year. Upon completion, serial purchases are provided. I want to remind you: according to the results of the meetings in Sochi, the Supreme Commander was tasked with re-equipping three regiments on Su-57 aircraft.
By: Scorpion82
- 13th August 2019 at 20:25Permalink
beat me to it Austin. Air Marshal Harish Masand's praise of the MiG-29 is truly fulsome. I also know from interaction with some IAF people in the past, that the MiG-29 truly was considered a fabulous jet aerodynamically, but it fell short on the way the information was presented to the pilot and the resulting situational awareness. Something that was a result of the Soviet GCI based piloting philosophy. And those were the key factors that the SMT and UPG upgrades addressed- the high pilot workload and the poor SA and of course the lower internal fuel volume.
I wish someone would give us an insight into how much improvement the SMT or UPG versions have over the older MiG-29A or the MiG-29M that lacked the improved cockpit avionics and radar and increased onboard fuel, but probably had lower empty weights and consequently slightly better T/W ratio.
The original MiG-29M (9.15) had everything you vlaim it didn't have and its first flight was on 25th April 1986. It formed the baseline for the original MiG-29K (9.31). The M2 was the twinseat version of the improved M. The prototype was actually converted from thw 4th of 6 original MiG-29M prototypes. The Indian contract let to the development of the new MiG-29K (9.41) and its twinseat version MiG-29KUB (9.47). The ultimate MiG-29M/M2 were based on these, as are the MiG-35/MiG-35D.
New
Posts: 3,337
By: BlackArcher
- 14th August 2019 at 00:44Permalink
Thanks for the correction Scorpion82. I wasn't aware that the MiG-29M had improved radar and avionics. Upon reading up, I stand corrected. Zhuk-ME radar and MFDs. Plus, the FBW that addressed the issue of the pilot having to manually make sure that the G-limits were not exceeded. Would've surely made the Fulcrum even easier to fly even for inexperienced pilots.
How much internal fuel did the MiG-29M carry as opposed to the original MiG-29A or the SMT?
How much internal fuel did the MiG-29M carry as opposed to the original MiG-29A or the SMT?
Far more, original MiG-29A did not meet range requirements. Hence the hunchback C version (9.13). MiG made substantial changes in MiG-29M and internal fuel capacity increased by 30%.
This comment by IAF MiG-29 pilot is worth pointing out:
How good were the sensors?
“Excellent. The combination of the powerful Pulse-Doppler radar, IRST and helmet mounted sight with the weapons slewed to the sensors was wonderful and unique since it did not exist on any other comparable aircraft those days.
This factor was also pointed out by Yugoslavian pilotos who evaluated MiG-29, F-16 and Mirage 2000.
By: stealthflanker
- 14th August 2019 at 09:21Permalink
Thanks for the correction Scorpion82. I wasn't aware that the MiG-29M had improved radar and avionics. Upon reading up, I stand corrected. Zhuk-ME radar and MFDs. Plus, the FBW that addressed the issue of the pilot having to manually make sure that the G-limits were not exceeded. Would've surely made the Fulcrum even easier to fly even for inexperienced pilots.
How much internal fuel did the MiG-29M carry as opposed to the original MiG-29A or the SMT?
Quite an improvement i see.
The MiG-29A izd 9.12 can carry about 3600 Kg of fuel internally.
The MiG-29M izd 9.15 which flew in 1986 is able to carry 4460 Kg of internal fuel.
The SMT since there are multiple variants which designated as SMT from barebone SMT which basically a MiG-29A with Zhuk radar to Egyptian 2 seaters (Which was at some point designated as "SMT-2") The fuel load varies. The latest one however which Egyptian flies (Which now designated as the M2) can carry about 5200 Kg of internal fuel.
This factor was also pointed out by Yugoslavian pilotos who evaluated MiG-29, F-16 and Mirage 2000.
When did Yugoslav pilots get to fly the F-16 and Mirage 2000?
The general consensus from Luftwaffe and USAF pilots who flew ex East German MiG-29s was that while the helmet mounted sights and and R-73 SRAAM were certainly impressive, the found the radar less impressive and the IRST not really worth having.
The general consensus from Luftwaffe and USAF pilots who flew ex East German MiG-29s was that while the helmet mounted sights and and R-73 SRAAM were certainly impressive, the found the radar less impressive and the IRST not really worth having.
Back in the 1980s. Note that those Luftwaffe/USAF pilots came from more advanced F-16 versions, or F-4 Phantom upgraded with F-18 avionics. In the 1990s MiG-29s would have fielded M version.
The IRST comment was made by a USAF pilot who spent some time in JG 73. Maybe the system was struggling with reliability because the opinion is not shared by other pilots (including Luftwaffe).
Those days SU used to export downgraded models and I read after break up of East Germany they took many classfied stuff from fighters including Mig-29 so as to reduce the exposure and falling it into NATO hand.
Back in 90's IAF has secretly carried out BFM involving Mig-29 and Israel AF F-16 the results of that is unknow but it was a mutually beneficial exposure
The Mirage was a much better multirole fighter from IAF pov while Mig-29 excelled in AD exactly the reason why it was purchased by IAF to counter PAF F-16.
I read from Mirage pilot twitter that Mirage-2000 was better in BVR to do better RDY/R530 AAM over Zhuk/R-27
By: Scorpion82
- 14th August 2019 at 19:25Permalink
Far more, original MiG-29A did not meet range requirements. Hence the hunchback C version (9.13). MiG made substantial changes in MiG-29M and internal fuel capacity increased by 30%.
This comment by IAF MiG-29 pilot is worth pointing out:
This factor was also pointed out by Yugoslavian pilotos who evaluated MiG-29, F-16 and Mirage 2000.
The table doesn't look right to me, based on various sources that I collected throughout the 90s already. According to these:
9.12 = 3190 kg
9.13 = 3480 kg
9.15/9.31 = 4500 kg
9.17 = 4775 kg
9.41/9.61 = 5200 kg
Don't have the twinseat numbers in my head, from memory it's 600 kg or do less on the 9.47/9.67.
Bear in mind that guel weight depends on fuel density, the capacity in litre is basically a more useful metric.
Concerning the SMT:
9.17 was the original prototype still with the N-019MP
9.17-2 became the 9.19 with the N-010M
9.18 for Yemen lacked the spine and thus increasef fuel and internal ECM, but was otherwise the same.
The original 9.15 was a very different aircraft with revised airframe incl. enlarged tailplanes with saw tooth, F/A-18 style airbrake, different tailcone with twin drag chute and reprofiled LERX. The auxiliary intakes were removed and tanks added (4500 kg in total, some state 4460 kg). It had a quadruplex analogue FBW for pitch control, uprated RD-33K with 5500 kg dry/8800 kg reheat thrust. Empty weight 11.5t, MTOW 21t.
Cockpit had reshaped canopy for improved visibility, increased seat inclination (30°), HOTAS and two monochrome MFDs controlled by HOTAS only.
Avionics included different chaff/flare dispensers with 120 rounds, L150 Pastel RWR, OEPS-29M, N-010 Zhuk (without M), new INS and IIRC new/improved radios, datalink and radio navigation aids.
Gun ammunition was reduced to 100 rounds, but the aircraft featured 4 pylons per wing with 4500 kg total payload.
Armament changes were supposed to comprise R-77, KAB-500L/KR, Kh-29T/L, Kh-31A/P, S-25L and Kh-25MT/ML/MP (never saw those on the aircraft).
Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 8th August 2019 at 06:18 Permalink
There is a lot of misunderstanding of how flight test programs work. An airplane's design is verified in stages.
A first-of-type flight test airplane is not intended to be stealthy. The first test jet is used to demonstrate flying qualities and propulsion performance and carries a lot of unique instrumentation. The first jet will have no LO materials, mission systems or weapons systems. Until the first jet proves it can be flown safely, no other jets of that type will be flown. Several other test jets will be used to validate LO, mission systems and weapons. The numerous antennas and air scoops evident on the first jet indicate readily-available substitute equipment is presently installed. As the design is validated over the series of hundreds of test flights, the substitute equipment will be gradually replaced by final kit as it gets closer to the time when it is approved for production.
Posts: 333
By: XB-70 - 8th August 2019 at 12:56 Permalink
[USER="40268"]blackwood[/USER] - The reveal picture of the static test frame published last year shows the final design. It has what is sometimes called a platypus type exhaust. These types of exhaust nozzles have shown themselves to be a maintenance headache in US designs. So they started flight tests of the drone without it (because they don't need it for that - as djcross pointed out) while they do materials research to try to avoid that outcome.
It will be interesting to see how quickly this project develops. I'm guessing its service date is more than 5 years out, but we'll see.
Posts: 376
By: panzerfeist1 - 8th August 2019 at 13:53 Permalink
su-57 First flyable prototype; first flight on 29 January 2010. In 2012, became the first prototype to be equipped with AESA radar, first tested in flight on 8 August 2012.
I know they have been test flying different prototypes with the SU-57s but is it a fair estimate that it will take 2.5 years until they go test the radar? Or will it be less than that because the focus is just on one drone instead of 1 su-57 prototype will be tested for flight and the 3rd prototype coming out will be tested for radar?
The Maks 2009 airshow showed the prototype radar of the su-57 and the side x-band radars were shown in the maks 2013 airshow. So I am estimating that atleast in this upcoming airshow they might show the radar and we can only pray that they would show the full set of avionics as well. But at least its safe to assume this drone will use the S-111 datalink. I hope we get a news source later either saying we will conduct multiple flight tests or test the radar/avionics in this given time frame like they recently did with its hops and flight tests.
Posts: 1,620
By: wilhelm - 8th August 2019 at 16:52 Permalink
My suggestion is to stop reading those sites.
They offer basically nothing of value... nothing beyond that which a teenaged armchair analyst could do.
Djcross has summarised it neatly...it's a prototype to be used for flight validation initially.
Posts: 6,186
By: Austin - 12th August 2019 at 21:11 Permalink
Interview with IAF Mig 29 pilot
https://hushkit.net/2019/08/12/flying-fighting-in-the-mig-29-interview-with-indian-air-force-fulcrum-pilot-air-marshal-harish-masand/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Posts: 3,337
By: BlackArcher - 13th August 2019 at 00:14 Permalink
beat me to it Austin. Air Marshal Harish Masand's praise of the MiG-29 is truly fulsome. I also know from interaction with some IAF people in the past, that the MiG-29 truly was considered a fabulous jet aerodynamically, but it fell short on the way the information was presented to the pilot and the resulting situational awareness. Something that was a result of the Soviet GCI based piloting philosophy. And those were the key factors that the SMT and UPG upgrades addressed- the high pilot workload and the poor SA and of course the lower internal fuel volume.
I wish someone would give us an insight into how much improvement the SMT or UPG versions have over the older MiG-29A or the MiG-29M that lacked the improved cockpit avionics and radar and increased onboard fuel, but probably had lower empty weights and consequently slightly better T/W ratio.
Posts: 6,186
By: Austin - 13th August 2019 at 10:57 Permalink
From what I read the first 40's bought in 80's were the first export model of Mig-29A exported to any country , India was the first one to have it.
The 20 purchased in mid 90's where modified variant with ability to fire R-77 which were consequently upgraded to earlier variant ....... The oldest cockpit I saw has a single CRT display on the right side.
Then came the Mig-29M in early 2000's with 4 HP carrying R-77 on each wing , 2 LCD cockpit display HOTAS and ability to fire some type of A2G variant Kh-31 etc , Then came the M2 , then K for IN and finally Mig-35.
The internal fuel was doubled compared to earlier 29A variant , Introduction of low smoke RD-33 series 3 etc was progressively added. Also was added dorsal drop tank as seen on Mig-29UPG.
The first 29A focussed on point defence AD and hence had the best TW ratio , The later model from 29M was more multirole capability higher internal fuel etc , I think the RD-33 engine received thrust upgrade too and life was extended.
All said and done the latest statement from Deputy RuAF chief states Mig-35 Operating cost is 1.5 times lower than modern Sukhoi family
Posts: 6,186
By: Austin - 13th August 2019 at 10:59 Permalink
http://redstar.ru/podyomnaya-sila-krylev-rossii/
Seems from RuAF Deputy chief statement PAK-FA has supercruise capability with current engine
- You have already mentioned in our conversation the aircraft of generation 4 ++ MiG-35 and 5th generation Su-57, which are now being tested. Tell us what opportunities do they have? How are the tests and when can they be expected in the army?
- The main difference between the MiG-35 and the multifunctional aircraft of the 4 ++ Su-30SM and Su-35S generations already in service is efficiency. The cost of its flight hour is about one and a half times lower than that of modern aircraft of the Sukhoi family.
The Su-57 is distinguished by multifunctionality, super maneuverability, a mode of long supersonic cruising flight, maximum automation of aircraft control processes and the use of weapons. In its capabilities, it surpasses the 5th generation aircraft of foreign air forces.
It is planned to complete state tests of the MiG-35 at the end of 2021, and the Su-57 this year. Upon completion, serial purchases are provided. I want to remind you: according to the results of the meetings in Sochi, the Supreme Commander was tasked with re-equipping three regiments on Su-57 aircraft.
Posts: 4,461
By: Scorpion82 - 13th August 2019 at 20:25 Permalink
The original MiG-29M (9.15) had everything you vlaim it didn't have and its first flight was on 25th April 1986. It formed the baseline for the original MiG-29K (9.31). The M2 was the twinseat version of the improved M. The prototype was actually converted from thw 4th of 6 original MiG-29M prototypes. The Indian contract let to the development of the new MiG-29K (9.41) and its twinseat version MiG-29KUB (9.47). The ultimate MiG-29M/M2 were based on these, as are the MiG-35/MiG-35D.
Posts: 3,337
By: BlackArcher - 14th August 2019 at 00:44 Permalink
Thanks for the correction Scorpion82. I wasn't aware that the MiG-29M had improved radar and avionics. Upon reading up, I stand corrected. Zhuk-ME radar and MFDs. Plus, the FBW that addressed the issue of the pilot having to manually make sure that the G-limits were not exceeded. Would've surely made the Fulcrum even easier to fly even for inexperienced pilots.
How much internal fuel did the MiG-29M carry as opposed to the original MiG-29A or the SMT?
Posts: 374
By: a89 - 14th August 2019 at 08:55 Permalink
Far more, original MiG-29A did not meet range requirements. Hence the hunchback C version (9.13). MiG made substantial changes in MiG-29M and internal fuel capacity increased by 30%.
http://alejandro-8en.blogspot.com/2016/07/fuel-load-in-different-mig-29-variants.html?_sm_au_=iVVHQ31n54p4fM5V
This comment by IAF MiG-29 pilot is worth pointing out:
This factor was also pointed out by Yugoslavian pilotos who evaluated MiG-29, F-16 and Mirage 2000.
Posts: 906
By: stealthflanker - 14th August 2019 at 09:21 Permalink
Quite an improvement i see.
The MiG-29A izd 9.12 can carry about 3600 Kg of fuel internally.
The MiG-29M izd 9.15 which flew in 1986 is able to carry 4460 Kg of internal fuel.
The SMT since there are multiple variants which designated as SMT from barebone SMT which basically a MiG-29A with Zhuk radar to Egyptian 2 seaters (Which was at some point designated as "SMT-2") The fuel load varies. The latest one however which Egyptian flies (Which now designated as the M2) can carry about 5200 Kg of internal fuel.
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 14th August 2019 at 09:27 Permalink
When did Yugoslav pilots get to fly the F-16 and Mirage 2000?
The general consensus from Luftwaffe and USAF pilots who flew ex East German MiG-29s was that while the helmet mounted sights and and R-73 SRAAM were certainly impressive, the found the radar less impressive and the IRST not really worth having.
Posts: 374
By: a89 - 14th August 2019 at 10:23 Permalink
Back in the 1980s. Note that those Luftwaffe/USAF pilots came from more advanced F-16 versions, or F-4 Phantom upgraded with F-18 avionics. In the 1990s MiG-29s would have fielded M version.
The IRST comment was made by a USAF pilot who spent some time in JG 73. Maybe the system was struggling with reliability because the opinion is not shared by other pilots (including Luftwaffe).
Posts: 6,186
By: Austin - 14th August 2019 at 12:56 Permalink
Those days SU used to export downgraded models and I read after break up of East Germany they took many classfied stuff from fighters including Mig-29 so as to reduce the exposure and falling it into NATO hand.
Back in 90's IAF has secretly carried out BFM involving Mig-29 and Israel AF F-16 the results of that is unknow but it was a mutually beneficial exposure
Posts: 6,186
By: Austin - 14th August 2019 at 12:57 Permalink
Indian Airforce MiG-29 versus Mirage 2000: personal account from Air Marshal Harish Masand
https://hushkit.net/2019/08/12/mig-29-versus-mirage-2000-personal-account-from-by-air-marshal-harish-masand/
Posts: 163
By: J-20 - 14th August 2019 at 13:47 Permalink
TLDR version: MiG-29 Destroys the Mirage 2000 in every single category. instantaneous turns, sustained turns, climb, etc and etc. DESTROYED!!!
Posts: 6,186
By: Austin - 14th August 2019 at 16:49 Permalink
The Mirage was a much better multirole fighter from IAF pov while Mig-29 excelled in AD exactly the reason why it was purchased by IAF to counter PAF F-16.
I read from Mirage pilot twitter that Mirage-2000 was better in BVR to do better RDY/R530 AAM over Zhuk/R-27
Posts: 4,461
By: Scorpion82 - 14th August 2019 at 19:25 Permalink
The table doesn't look right to me, based on various sources that I collected throughout the 90s already. According to these:
9.12 = 3190 kg
9.13 = 3480 kg
9.15/9.31 = 4500 kg
9.17 = 4775 kg
9.41/9.61 = 5200 kg
Don't have the twinseat numbers in my head, from memory it's 600 kg or do less on the 9.47/9.67.
Bear in mind that guel weight depends on fuel density, the capacity in litre is basically a more useful metric.
Concerning the SMT:
9.17 was the original prototype still with the N-019MP
9.17-2 became the 9.19 with the N-010M
9.18 for Yemen lacked the spine and thus increasef fuel and internal ECM, but was otherwise the same.
The original 9.15 was a very different aircraft with revised airframe incl. enlarged tailplanes with saw tooth, F/A-18 style airbrake, different tailcone with twin drag chute and reprofiled LERX. The auxiliary intakes were removed and tanks added (4500 kg in total, some state 4460 kg). It had a quadruplex analogue FBW for pitch control, uprated RD-33K with 5500 kg dry/8800 kg reheat thrust. Empty weight 11.5t, MTOW 21t.
Cockpit had reshaped canopy for improved visibility, increased seat inclination (30°), HOTAS and two monochrome MFDs controlled by HOTAS only.
Avionics included different chaff/flare dispensers with 120 rounds, L150 Pastel RWR, OEPS-29M, N-010 Zhuk (without M), new INS and IIRC new/improved radios, datalink and radio navigation aids.
Gun ammunition was reduced to 100 rounds, but the aircraft featured 4 pylons per wing with 4500 kg total payload.
Armament changes were supposed to comprise R-77, KAB-500L/KR, Kh-29T/L, Kh-31A/P, S-25L and Kh-25MT/ML/MP (never saw those on the aircraft).
That as a brief summary.
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 14th August 2019 at 22:29 Permalink
Looks like they did it again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=-HAkqvTiwr8
This time against an Hornet. Could this be from Finnish Airforce?