jessmo112 wrote:
If you will allow me to enter into this amazing discussion I have a few questions for you?
1. If Russia needed the Mig then why not now?
I didn't say Russia needed MiG. I don't know why do they keep them around. Maybe they have some more secret work going on. Maybe it is institutional pride. Maybe they still hope to score some MiG-35 sales. Maybe they are useful to ferment some R&D ideas. As a matter of fact, I don't know the exact structure of MiG as of now, it could be 10,000 people or 100. Perhaps Milosh is more up to date with that.
jessmo112 wrote:
2. Doesnt Russia have vast territory to defend, And could use a decently priced point defence fighter? Could they afford a force of all heavy fighters During the Soviet era?
If they didnt buy all flankers and foxbats then, what makes you think they can do it now?
This question is multifold:
Russia does have a vast territory to defend. So vast in fact, that "a point defence fighter" and "vast Russian territory" are mutually exclusive. Fulcrum simply does not cut it. Point defence implies existence of a well developed infrastructure of bases. An infrastructure that does not exist, nor is possible to be built given Russian realities. Besides, there is a "Gripen fallacy" in this logic. Fulcrum may be "decently priced", but you need larger numbers. Fulcrum is MX nightmare (
most expensive option in Finnish competition in 1992, remember that) + aformentioned basing. The reality is that cost vs performance ratio does not favor Fulcrum over Flanker, and by a large margin.
As for the second part of your question: Fulcrum has been approved for development later than the Flanker but entered service before it, chiefly because of shortcoming of the initial Flanker which needed a redesign after initial prototypes were flown. However, the Soviets did in fact in a way have an air force of only Foxbats and Flankers - the PVO Aviation. PVO Aviation never bought Fulcrums. As a matter of fact a PVO version was never developed. It is true that PVO had some shorter range fighters, like Su-15 or versions of MiG-23, but PVO Aviation was chiefly interested in big, high performance (both range and capable radar) fighters abd they continued to take in MiG-31 and Su-27P fighters at slower rate and disregarded MiG-29 completely. MiG-29 was a VVS fighter, because VVS needed far larger numbers of fighters, and not necessarily as capable.
The Russian Air force had less funds at its disposal (especially in the nineties), it is true. So what do you think they did with their funds? They maximized the bang they get for their buck - and went on to procure more
Flankers than Fulcrums. Today there exists no air force that has a "high-low" mix of Flankers an Fulcrums. Every air force that has a mix of Flankers and Fulcrums has more Flankers in service, and usually even more Flankers on order. I will touch upon that later. The Russian air force, that supposedly is looking for "reasonably priced" fighter, is also an operatior of a large number of Su-34 attack aircraft, which is neither cheap nor light, however is very capable and thus desirable. According to FlightGlobal's 2020 data, Russian Air Force has 429 Flankers (52 on order) and 251 Fulcrums (34 on order). That's a ratio of about 7:4 in favor of a heavier fighter (ratio of 3:2 ordered). The ratio is almost 9:4 if one counts 120+ Fullbacks as a variant of Flanker. There are another 130+ Foxbats in Russian service, meaning that Russian Air Force flies almost three heavy fighters for one Fulcrum. There are more Flankers than Fulcrums in service with Russian Naval Aviation too. I do not merely think that Russia can afford heavy fighters and that it clearly prefers the type over Fulcrum. It is, in fact, what what Russia does, as do many other countries.
jessmo112 wrote:3. As long as you have former clients that have hundreds of these planes, why would you NOT want to replace them?
Again: look up "clients with hundreds of planes". Who are those exactly? Cuba? Kyrgyzstan? Yemen? Sudan?
The large number of Fulcrums produced, and exported, is explained by the simple facts that 1) Fulcrum entered mass production earlier 2)
Fulcrum was the only Soviet 4th generation fighter to be exported. 3) A lot of second hand Fulcrums were available for bargain sales after collapse of USSR.
Most current Fulcrum operators fly second hand fighters.
There simply aren't enough clients for Fulcrum today. Those who can buy Western jets - buy Western jets. Those who can afford to buy Russian jets prefer Flankers. And no, one cannot "upgrade" Soviet MiG-29s to the MiG-35 standard (or even lower tier sometimes) - the differences are just too great.
The countries that bought new built Fulcrums fróm Russia (post 1990) amout to the staggering list of
five:
1) Russian Air Force and Navy land-based aviation (what a surprise).
2) Indian Navy. Indian Navy bought (and funded the development of a more modern version of) MiG-29K, not because it is capable, but because it is the only fighter that fits Vikramaditya. FYI Vikramaditya is a rebuilt Kiev-class carrier. A carrier that was based on Moskva-calss ASW helicopter cruiser and was meant to use Forger VTOL planes. Look up the size of the hangar on that ship and read about flight ops on those type of ships. Indian Air Force is supposedly in talks about the new batch of Fulcrums (initial batch was purchased from late USSR, look up reason 2) for Fulcrum export success), but before you decide on whether Fulcrum's amazing value for money merits that I urge you to look up the numbers of Fulcrums lost in accidents. Indian Air Force also operates almost four times as many Flankers as it does Fulcrums. No low-high mix here.
3) Algeria. Algeria bought first batch of its Fulcrums second hand (look up reason number 3) for Fulcrum export success) from Russia and Belarus, and wanted some more. They have famously cancelled their order after initial "new" Fulcrums were delivered, and instead requested Flankers in sxchange, at the rate of 1:1. Algeria now operates more Flankers (brand new MKA that it bought from Russia) vs 32 second hand Fulcrums (which at best yielded some maintnance money for Russia, if even that).
4) Malaysia. Malaysia bought some 18, allegedly brand new (I remain sceptical that Russia in 1995 could build 18 brand new fighter in less than two years, most likely those were low mileage refurbished birds), "special Malaysian edition" Fulcrums from Russia in 1995. And proceeded to
retire them from service around 2017, after floating ideas of mothballing those as early as 2010. Malaysia is now thinking whether to buy second hand Kuwaiti F/A-18 or some rand new Flankers to augment their fleet. That's right, another nation that got rid of "cheap" Fulcrums because it can't afford it and wants to get "expensive" Flankers.
5) Egypt. Egypt signed a contract for 46 Fulcrums in 2014. This, so far, is probably the biggest success of the Fulcrum, in a country that buys weapons chiefly as a diplomatic measure, and a country that is also reportedly negotiating the purchase of... some Flankers. See the pattern here?
As for another countries:
Azerbaijan - 12x second hand from Ukraine and Belarus.
Bangladesh - 8x fighters (most likely ex-Soviet surplus). A lucrative customer!
Belarus - 39x, inherited from USSR or donated from Russian surplus. Also has Flankers (!) on order, probably on Russian credit as a political leverage.
Bulgaria - 13x, inherited from WarPac days. Chose F-16s as replacement.
Cuba - 3x, late Soviet export. I bet they paid a 100% fair market price for those. A lucrative customer!
Eritrea - 5x second-hand/surplus. A lucrative customer!
Iran - supposedly 20. Mostly second-hand ex-Soviet surplus they managed to smuggle into the country in the early 1990s, but some ex-Iraqi birds from 1991 exodus. They can't buy new fighters because of the sanctions... but my money is that if they could, they would go for Flankers.
Kazakhstan - 25x Fulcrums inherited from Soviet Union, as well as some MiG-31s and Su-27. Guess which one of those three Kazakhstan bought some more, from modern Russia? 16x Su-30 of course, with more on the books.
Myanmar - 31x, 10 bought second hand from Belarus, and 20 from Russia in 2009, though I don't know if new or refurbished. Let's count them as a lucrative customer!
North Korea - 35x late Soviet export/early Russia shady business practices. No comments regarding the Best Korea as potential lucrative customer.
Peru - 7x, second-hand bought from, you guessed, Belarus.
Poland - inherited Fulcrums from WarPac days and bought some East German surplus of the same source. Now a F-35 club member.
Serbia - inherited from Yugoslavia. Late Soviet export (see reason #2), probably one of the few countries that actually paid for them as opposed to buying them using Soviet "credit". Some second-hand donated/purchased from Russia.
Slovakia - inherited Fulcrums from Czechoslovakia which ingerited those from WarPac era. Chose F-16s as replacement.
Sudan - a dozen second-hand Fulcrums, most likely bought on the reliable semi-official black market of Belarus/Ukraine/Russia in the 1990s. A potential customer!
Syria - 20x listed, most likely much less operational. Late Soviet export. No doubt paid in full with pure gold.
Turkmenistan - 24x, inherited from USSR. A lucrative customer!
Ukraine - some 20x. Not a likely customer TBH.
Uzbekistan - 39x total airframes, Soviet inheritance.
Yemen - 32x. A bit sceptical regarding this one as a potential customer.
My Boi Haftar - apparently got 6x Soviet surplus Fulcrums from Russia just a couple of days ago. I suspect they will act as chief actors is more TAI Anka promo videos quite soon.
As you can see, Fulcrum does not sell particularly well, unlike Flanker - the second most common fighter in the world right now, with more than 1000 built. More than F-15, more than Eurofighter. Absolute majority was built and exported by modern Russia, not given away as military aid by USSR. There must be a reason for it, don't you think? The short answer is that Fulcrum is simply not a good plane, in all the meanings of this word.
jessmo112 wrote:4. And finally How hard is it to take an F-35 planform and put 2 Su-27 engines in it? How hard would it be to throw some stealth coatings on it, and an internal IRST and call it a day. Again I consider myself ignorant, I am at my worst an armchair enthusiast, at my best a aviation blog
Groupie.If my questions show my ignorance please excuse me.
And what would be the benefit of such a plane? An even shorter range than a Fulcrum already? Inability to carry big, albeit powerful Russian radars? Inability to have a large internal weapon bay? Inability to carry even bigger weapons externally? What are you trying to achieve? MiG-29 does not suffer from lack of thrust-to-weight, its all the other virtues that it lacks.