F-35 vs. Mig-29

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 26 Jan 2018, 17:21

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
tailgate wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Sooner or later, she's going to fly into combat with those block II 9x's. Maybe we'll find out then if they compromise her stealth. I personally feel the canted pylons are for just that reason (minimize RCS) but who knows. Are there plans to carry the 9x internally?

I know she can carry 4 AMRAAM's now, with plans ultimately for 6..

If you are talking about the 22, you are incorrect.....I cannot go into some load outs ( some are still classified), but AMRAAM, 9X have been carried since late 2015 in varying numbers and in combat although not fired in anger yet. When I retired, the talk was still trying to get HCMS up and trying to get the MALD system viable again.....

No, tailgate, mixelflick is talking about the F-35 here.

Correct. I was referencing the F-35

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 19 Feb 2018, 22:10

Apparently the standard MiG-35 being built for Russia has NO AESA and NO TVC being mainly a somewhat upgraded land-based version of the MiG-29KR carrier variant.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ased-19246

“The current plane is essentially an upgrade of the MiG-29KR,” a Russian industry source told me. “There is no thrust vectoring. And the lack of an AESA radar is of a more cost problem from a procurement standpoint rather than a technical problem.”

“The entire MiG-35 project exists only in order to maintain the production line of RSK-MiG as well as for export,” the source continued. “Technical specifications were a secondary factor. The MoD [Ministry of Defense] wants an AESA radar, but wants it [the MiG-35] as cheaply as possible. Foreign customers, who can buy MiGs, are still buying the jet without an AESA due to cost factors.”

tsl256 · by **tsl256** » 19 Feb 2018, 22:25

What Russia is doing with Mig is exactly what the U.S is doing with Boeing, corporate welfare to keep production lines running.

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 19 Feb 2018, 22:39

Maybe but the Super Hornet is a very capable modernish fighter which is being enhanced to its maximum all the time whereas the MIG-35 is like a minimum cost/effort MIG-29+ at the moment. SHs can also double up as tankers and EW aircraft enhancing their utility.

nutshell · by **nutshell** » 20 Feb 2018, 01:01

Boeing is delivering good products tho.

There's a lot to gain for the US to keep'em in the business.

Besides, any mentally sane government would and should preserve such an important asset.

Now, if the board of Boeing could be a little less obsessed by the bug...

rheonomic · by **rheonomic** » 20 Feb 2018, 03:17

nutshell wrote:Now, if the Navy could be a little less obsessed by the bug...

Fixed that for you.

nutshell · by **nutshell** » 20 Feb 2018, 08:53

rheonomic wrote:
nutshell wrote:Now, if the Navy could be a little less obsessed by the bug...

Fixed that for you.

Yup ty for the correction

I meant the us navy

gta4 · by **gta4** » 20 Feb 2018, 09:33

marsavian wrote:Apparently the standard MiG-35 being built for Russia has NO AESA and NO TVC being mainly a somewhat upgraded land-based version of the MiG-29KR carrier variant.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ased-19246

“The current plane is essentially an upgrade of the MiG-29KR,” a Russian industry source told me. “There is no thrust vectoring. And the lack of an AESA radar is of a more cost problem from a procurement standpoint rather than a technical problem.”

“The entire MiG-35 project exists only in order to maintain the production line of RSK-MiG as well as for export,” the source continued. “Technical specifications were a secondary factor. The MoD [Ministry of Defense] wants an AESA radar, but wants it [the MiG-35] as cheaply as possible. Foreign customers, who can buy MiGs, are still buying the jet without an AESA due to cost factors.”

Current Mig-35 has no AESA?

Good. This thread won't evolve into T/R module number counting contest.

optimist · by **optimist** » 20 Feb 2018, 09:51

I like those posts, I'm waiting for them to be uploaded to wiki specs. They should include the number of t/r modules. The plane that can do a good airshow, flies higher, faster and with the most t/r modules, wins.

gta4 · by **gta4** » 20 Feb 2018, 09:59

MIG-35 has no TVC.
No Mig-29 variants in mass production has TVC.
With J-turn and tight loop capability, F-35 can easily out-maneuver a Mig.

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 20 Feb 2018, 14:38

gta4 wrote:MIG-35 has no TVC.
No Mig-29 variants in mass production has TVC.
With J-turn and tight loop capability, F-35 can easily out-maneuver a Mig.

Why on earth then are they pumping more $ into such an old airframe? To make it look good for potential export customers? I see a bigger airframe and perhaps more fuel, but buying an aircraft devoid of an AESA in this day and age seems so... pedestrian.

Why wouldn't they just buy more SU-35's? Granted, there's no AESA there either but it's a lot more capable airframe..

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 20 Feb 2018, 15:20

Russia wants to keep Mikoyan solvent so they can bid for future contracts, a bit like the US with the defense division of Boeing. Actually the TVC design of MIG-29OVT/MIG-35 is better than the Sukhoi design, all aspect rotational and >20deg but no customer wants to pay for it nor an AESA and still keep the MIG cost under $50m. Comes down to money, do you really want premium cost items on your cheapest light fighter ?

There is a parallel in the West with this situation, Eurofighter developed a similar all aspect TVC nozzle for Typhoon years ago but no customer wants to pay to integrate it and AESA is still in pending status for the original customers. TVC is great when you and your opponent have run out of speed and you still want to point your aircraft anywhere but most air forces think how relevant is that in this day of stealth/powerful AESA radars/BVR missiles/IRST and all aspect WVR missiles ? Fine if it is a standard item but do you want to pay extra for it ? Apparently not.

gta4 · by **gta4** » 20 Feb 2018, 16:05

Personally I think Mig29OVT is a better airframe than Su35.
Just check the official maneuverability data (climb rate, acceleration...), Su35 is even inferior than Mig29A. So Mig29A with TVC would be a more lethal airframe (kinematic-wise). When it come to payload/range/radar power it's a different story.

gta4 · by **gta4** » 20 Feb 2018, 16:07

F100 and 110 also have AVEN/PYBBN nozzles which are ready for customers. They are even more advanced (20 deg deviation in any direction). Personally I believe F-15E+GE129+AVEN-CFT is the best possible 4th Gen configuration. Unfortunately no customer showed any interests to AVEN/PYBBN

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 20 Feb 2018, 23:43

gta4 wrote:Personally I think Mig29OVT is a better airframe than Su35.
Just check the official maneuverability data (climb rate, acceleration...), Su35 is even inferior than Mig29A. So Mig29A with TVC would be a more lethal airframe (kinematic-wise). When it come to payload/range/radar power it's a different story.

Is the climb rate/acceleration more due to the fact that the MIG-29 has very little internal fuel (3500 kg) and engines with very good dynamic thrust (up to 11,500 kgf at Mach 1.2 at 1km) accentuating the already high initial thrust/weight ratio ? ( >1 with normal loaded weight of 15000 kg and keeping that when supersonic at altitude) After all it was designed as a combat field hotrod interceptor dogfighter with little regard for range or combat persistence.