Mikoyan MiG-35

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 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4157
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post09 Aug 2020, 16:44

Wow, 30 whole aircraft? Talk about a token force, and that's IF they proceed beyond the 6 examples in service. My have the mighty fallen, at least insofar as numbers. We used to be outnumbered by what, 4:1 or more when comparing NATO/Warsaw Pact tactical aircraft? 6:1 maybe??

Regardless, I can't see the Mig-35 being bought in large numbers - unless it wins in India. The whole value prop as I understand it is the Mig-35 will be a LOT cheaper to maintain/operate than the Flanker. This, while being capable of carrying super duper hypersonic ultra long range AAM's. Which without an AESA... isn't likely. Egypt was rumored to be shopping it, but now that their SU-35 order went through it's doubtful there's any money left over. Realistically, India is all that's left.

Maybe they can sell 100 or so to the USAF. You know, for adversary evaluation and DACT lol.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4930
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post09 Aug 2020, 18:22

mixelflick wrote:. We used to be outnumbered by what, 4:1 or more when comparing NATO/Warsaw Pact tactical aircraft? 6:1 maybe??

Back in the days of the MiG-21 maybe
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6448
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post09 Aug 2020, 21:16

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:. We used to be outnumbered by what, 4:1 or more when comparing NATO/Warsaw Pact tactical aircraft? 6:1 maybe??

Back in the days of the MiG-21 maybe



They also realized that unlike tank warfare that really doesn't work with airpower.

The F-15s kill Ratio in the air might be the best proof of this.
Choose Crews
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3223
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post10 Aug 2020, 14:03

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:. We used to be outnumbered by what, 4:1 or more when comparing NATO/Warsaw Pact tactical aircraft? 6:1 maybe??

Back in the days of the MiG-21 maybe


I don't think that was true even then if we compare NATO and Warsaw Pact, I think it was more like 2:1 or even more even. Total production of MiG-21 was something like 12,000 or so. F-4 production was slightly less than half of that (in shorter time) and then there were F-104, F-5, Mirage III, Mirage F1, EE Lighting and even Saab Draken which were in use in NATO countries.

Of course locally things might've been very different.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4930
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post10 Aug 2020, 14:39

That's a great point, the MiG-21 may be the most produced fighter in history (IIRC) but there was such a variety of fighters made by so many countries at that time vs just was the USSR could pump out.

I was recently having a discussion with some friends about the MiG-35 and why it is failing. I pointed out that USSR/Russia has never had success with mid-weight fighters. All their success stories come from light weight gen1-2 designs (MiG-15/17/21) and heavyweight gen 3-4 designs (MiG-25/31, T-10 series) I know the T-10 series doesn't have the combat record that the rest of the "success stories" do, but I see that largely as circumstance. It does not have a failing record in it's limited combat.

We also discussed what made light vs mid weight. To me, it is an empty weight under 20k and a MGTOW under 40K. Late model F-16s are middle weight fighters to me.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 907
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post10 Aug 2020, 14:55

MiG-35 is too little too late. It's what MiG-29 should have been a long time ago, but with Russian budget issues, the only reason it still exist is to make sure MiG won't die.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4157
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post10 Aug 2020, 16:57

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:That's a great point, the MiG-21 may be the most produced fighter in history (IIRC) but there was such a variety of fighters made by so many countries at that time vs just was the USSR could pump out.

I was recently having a discussion with some friends about the MiG-35 and why it is failing. I pointed out that USSR/Russia has never had success with mid-weight fighters. All their success stories come from light weight gen1-2 designs (MiG-15/17/21) and heavyweight gen 3-4 designs (MiG-25/31, T-10 series) I know the T-10 series doesn't have the combat record that the rest of the "success stories" do, but I see that largely as circumstance. It does not have a failing record in it's limited combat.

We also discussed what made light vs mid weight. To me, it is an empty weight under 20k and a MGTOW under 40K. Late model F-16s are middle weight fighters to me.


That's a reasonable guideline, I think. The part I think that's misleading is the assumption that "heavy" fighters are always going to be more capable. That's not always the case, and the recent success of the J-10 vs. SU-35 seems to indicate such. Now of course, we don't know all the details or ROE's but consider the highlighted items which fall in the J-10C's favor...

1.) J-10C has better radar (AESA vs PESA)
2.) J-10C has 3d thrust vectoring, just like the SU-35
3.) J-10C can carry longer ranged missiles (PL-12/15 vs. R-77)
4.) J-10C has smaller radar signature
[b]5.) J-10C has much smaller visual signature


So the "heavyweight" SU-35 isn't necessarily superior. In fact, it's at a distinct disadvantage in a number of important areas.

As for your observation they haven't had any success in medium fighters, I agree. Not sure anyone's thought about it like that (there's no common definition of each type, at least that I'm aware of). They (Russians) apparently have no plans of pursuing one either, with up-rated Flankers and the SU-57 in the future. They even went big with the Hunter drone. So we shall see. I think a lot of their Flankers would suffer at the hands of an AESA equipped F-16, but hopefully we never have to find out.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4930
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post10 Aug 2020, 17:17

mixelflick wrote: The part I think that's misleading is the assumption that "heavy" fighters are always going to be more capable.

I never meant to imply that heavy fighters are more capable, only that all the Soviet/Russian fighters that were successful in their intended role were either light or heavy.

By my loose definitions below

Empty Weight
Light<20klb<Medium<30klb<Heavy
MGTOW
Light<40klb<Medium<60klb<Heavy

The light gray Eagles are Medium fighters unless they carry FAST packs. Clearly, it saw success against light, medium, and heavy fighter enemies and have the most impressive kill rate of any fighter.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post10 Aug 2020, 17:55

I think the problem with the Mig-29/Mig-29 family of fighters is that once you get outside its original role as a short range Cold War fighter; the limited size of that air-frame (in real life it is rather shockingly small, basically just a bit bigger than a F-16, plus you have to feed 2 engines) generally handicaps it for everything else. And I wonder if Egypt will buy any more Mig-35s?


The mid weight Su-15 might be considered a success as a PVO interceptor, that is if one wants to include the barbaric task of shooting down civilian airliners.
Previous

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests