SU 30 Question

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: 3000
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post09 Dec 2018, 18:28

element1loop wrote:
mixelflick wrote:The preponderance of the evidence suggests that well flown Mig-29's don't fare well vs. US F-15's. And I rather doubt if they were flying upgraded versions, the results would have been much different..


Well, they most likely won't be facing F-15s any more from this time next year.

I read this yesterday and all I can say is the MiG'35' version that's to be acquired looks to be one very disappointing aircraft.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... draw-close


I'm not buying the fact they'll field 170. If they do, it'll be a huge waste of $. The Flanker has it all over it any way to look at it, especially the SU-35. Would be much better to order more SU-30SM's/SU-35's IMO. I also think it's sad that in the year 2019, this is the best Mig can do. Update an airframe first flown in 1977? Pathetic. If they weren't propped up by the gov't, Mig would probably been out of business long ago..

One thing I've wondered about: Why omit thrust vectoring?
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 326
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post10 Dec 2018, 16:09

mixelflick wrote:
element1loop wrote:
mixelflick wrote:The preponderance of the evidence suggests that well flown Mig-29's don't fare well vs. US F-15's. And I rather doubt if they were flying upgraded versions, the results would have been much different..


Well, they most likely won't be facing F-15s any more from this time next year.

I read this yesterday and all I can say is the MiG'35' version that's to be acquired looks to be one very disappointing aircraft.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... draw-close


I'm not buying the fact they'll field 170. If they do, it'll be a huge waste of $. The Flanker has it all over it any way to look at it, especially the SU-35. Would be much better to order more SU-30SM's/SU-35's IMO. I also think it's sad that in the year 2019, this is the best Mig can do. Update an airframe first flown in 1977? Pathetic. If they weren't propped up by the gov't, Mig would probably been out of business long ago..

One thing I've wondered about: Why omit thrust vectoring?


Im also very surprised. The "new" Mig-35 is a Mig-29m who can use more modern Russian Weapons. :shock: Funny thing is, when i discuss with others which Fighter Switzerland should buy, several guys said Mig-35. Its cheap and a top notch Multirole fighter. :roll:
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1124
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post10 Dec 2018, 16:11

mixelflick wrote:
element1loop wrote:
mixelflick wrote:The preponderance of the evidence suggests that well flown Mig-29's don't fare well vs. US F-15's. And I rather doubt if they were flying upgraded versions, the results would have been much different..


Well, they most likely won't be facing F-15s any more from this time next year.

I read this yesterday and all I can say is the MiG'35' version that's to be acquired looks to be one very disappointing aircraft.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... draw-close


I'm not buying the fact they'll field 170. If they do, it'll be a huge waste of $. The Flanker has it all over it any way to look at it, especially the SU-35. Would be much better to order more SU-30SM's/SU-35's IMO. I also think it's sad that in the year 2019, this is the best Mig can do. Update an airframe first flown in 1977? Pathetic. If they weren't propped up by the gov't, Mig would probably been out of business long ago..

One thing I've wondered about: Why omit thrust vectoring?


I'm guessing the 170 number is part of the govt support that you mentioned, as opposed to giving it all to one supplier. My guess is they left the TVC off because they realized it won't make a difference in A2A but it costs more. I looked over the Wiki page 'numbers' and they claimed another 3000m ceiling for a MiG35, but it has the same engine thrust and wing, but is significantly heavier compared to the current export MiG29 ... Unicorn injected?

:doh:
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3000
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post10 Dec 2018, 16:38

A LOT of this (not just some) of it, doesn't add up. It almost sounds like Mig wanted to make the Mig-35 a much better fighter, but realized it would add significantly to the cost, making it a less attractive fighter to foreign buyers. The AESA radar would have certainly made it better, but again - the Russians aren't opting for that (b/c of cost). DItto for thrust vectoring. And I predict eventually, the "advanced weapons" it claims to carry.

So we're left with a Mig-29 with better range. If they do procure 170 examples, it's going to really hurt the Russian Air Force. Those rubles could have gone to purchasing more SU-30's/SU-35's, even the SU-57 to try and salvage it. They cost more to operate yes, but at least they'll be competitive vs. foreign models.

I honestly feel bad for Mig. Hard to believe they've fallen this far behind Sukhoi and the rest of the world. Good luck with your glorified Mig-29, in a world that's soon to be flying and fighting in stealth fighters*.

* 'Cept for Canada...
Offline

juretrn

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 387
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post10 Dec 2018, 21:18

mixelflick wrote:The AESA radar would have certainly made it better

What AESA? The one they've made different prototype for every iteration of MAKS since 2005? The one that was so "good" that it was rejected by RuAF?
Russia stronk
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 690
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post11 Dec 2018, 21:34

mixelflick wrote:One thing I've wondered about: Why omit thrust vectoring?


Because MiG-29OVT (MiG tvc demonstrator) had complex TVC nozzle they wanted real 3D tvc so nozzle was complex. On other hand Sukhoi use 2d TVC nozzle which is far less complex, plus it is tilted so they can have some quasi 3D tvc. So adding TVC to Sukhoi wasn't problematic or expensive.

Another problem is engine thrust. Russian Sukhois are getting AL-41 right now and will get Su-57 engine in future while no new engine for MiG-29/35 is planned I think. So adding TVC to MiG-35 which is already noticable heavier then MiG-29A wouldn't be effective without new engine.
Previous

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 15 guests