2*MIG 35 >> RAFALE/EFT

[perplexed]

hmmmm as per I know, 'Super Sukhoi' SU30MKI is fit in comparison with SU35BM. I can hardly gather the same info which is available on net and we generally discuss

but, from my side, I would say SU35BM wasn't a bad option as compare to Rafale, IAF may think for SU35BM in place of Rafale also. it will bring many other advantages like similarity with SU30MKI, high end air superiority capability, little cheaper and ready to be delivered. I support Rafale only because first SU35 wasn't offered for MMRCA and second IAF already has SU30MKI and also recently ordered 42 Super Sukhoi totalling 270 by 2015/16, so,......... anyhow you have this type of aircraft.

I generally support SU35BM for Brazil than Rafale as they don't have SU30MKI

Rafale is medium weight Omni role whereas Su35BM is heavy air-superiority. Also, we are already going to have PAKFA. No sense in going for Su35s more so when MKIs are almost 99% SU35 only with a bit low on stealth.

 

[sancho]

Off topic:

Su 35 (initial varient) developed in the late 80s, was an upgraded Su 27 with multi role capability, it was available in single and twin seat prototypes and had canards!

Su 37, tech demonstrator based on this Su 35 but had engines with TVC capabilities!

Su 30 MKI, is a twin seat Su 35 (initial varient), with the AL 31 FP engine and TVC of the Su 37!

Su 35BM (the current version) is a further upgraded version of the older Su 35, but instead of canards it used 3D TVC to increase maneuverability. It also has an upgraded varient of the PESA radar that the MKI has, a reduced RCS, modernised cockpit and avionics.

Su Super 30, upgraded Su 30 MKI varient with reduced RCS, moderinised cockpit and avionics and AESA radar!


Su 35 (initial varient):

Su 30 MKI:

Su 35BM / S

With these Super 30s coming in soon and the FGFA already under development, it should be clear now why we don't need the Su 35BM anymore!

 

[Hello_10]

Off topic:

Su 35 (initial varient) developed in the late 80s, was an upgraded Su 27 with multi role capability, it was available in single and twin seat prototypes and had canards!

Su 37, tech demonstrator based on this Su 35 but had engines with TVC capabilities!

Su 30 MKI, is a twin seat Su 35 (initial varient), with the AL 31 FP engine and TVC of the Su 37!

Su 35BM (the current version) is a further upgraded version of the older Su 35, but instead of canards it used 3D TVC to increase maneuverability. It also has an upgraded varient of the PESA radar that the MKI has, a reduced RCS, modernised cockpit and avionics.

Su Super 30, upgraded Su 30 MKI varient with reduced RCS, moderinised cockpit and avionics and AESA radar!


Su 35 (initial varient):

Su 30 MKI:

Su 35BM / S

With these Super 30s coming in soon and the FGFA already under development, it should be clear now why we don't need the Su 35BM anymore!

it is no doubt that 'Rafale F4'+Super Suphoi Su30MKI/ SU35BM will be the deadliest combination for any airforce of the world till 2025/30 or may be afterwards. first it is now widely accepted that Su35BM or SU30MKI will be the biggest threat to US's aircrafts in future in a2a combat, then on the other hand Omni Role aircraft Rafale is said to be the best multi role aircraft of today's world. Su30MKI/ Su35, the best air superiority aircraft and Rafale, the best multi role aircraft in 4++ catagory while there is no certainty how effective the 5th gen will be whcih are still in development.

Part of the presentation showed a computer simulation which calculated that the F-35 would be consistently defeated by the Russian-made SU-35 fighter aircraft. The defeat calculated by the scenario also showed the loss of the F-35's supporting airborne-early warning and air-to-air refueling aircraft.

Independent air combat analysts from Air Power Australia have also stated that the F-35 is not capable of facing high end threats;
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4416.html

 

[Hello_10]

Russia missile offer again - Times Of India


Russian defence officials said Moscow was offering the long-range S-300V surface-to-air this was back in 2002 but there is nothing to state we have actually bought the system as of yet.

yes and when it was asked why India was refusing this much capable missile defense then Indian side said they had got something better than S300, possibly from Israel. but later the we got the news that India had built two layers of missile defence, one Russian S300 and one from israel. but since india singed about $2.5bn missile defense development deal with Israel in 2009, we got the news that India then started replacing the old Israeli missile defense along with S300 with the newest version of Israeli and S400 of Russian since 2009. I even heard that Russia delivered first batch of S400 to India, not to Russia itself, because India was on the higher risk of any sudden war than Russia since 26/11 2008. but, as the effectiveness of missile defence is still in question, until we get S-500 and one that India may develop something by itself also while working with Israel currently, Indian side always keep their missile defense hidden so that they dont have to say about the exact location/ combined approach of both the missile defence layers.

India is one of CHina and Russia whose defence plans are always hidden. like their 'secret' nuclear submarine deal with Russia and one more would come within next 2 years while I read somewhere that IN is expecting at least 3 to 4 of this type submarines with upgraded versions

 

[perplexed]

yes and when it was asked why India was refusing this much capable missile defense then Indian side said they had got something better than S300, possibly from Israel. but later the we got the news that India had built two layers of missile defence, one Russian S300 and one from israel. but since india singed about $2.5bn missile defense development deal with Israel in 2009, we got the news that India then started replacing the old Israeli missile defense along with S300 with the newest version of Israeli and S400 of Russian since 2009. I even heard that Russia delivered first batch of S400 to India, not to Russia itself, because India was on the higher risk of any sudden war than Russia since 26/11 2008. but, as the effectiveness of missile defence is still in question, until we get S-500 and one that India may develop something by itself also while working with Israel currently, Indian side always keep their missile defense hidden so that they dont have to say about the exact location/ combined approach of both the missile defence layers.

India is one of CHina and Russia whose defence plans are always hidden. like their 'secret' nuclear submarine deal with Russia and one more would come within next 2 years while I read somewhere that IN is expecting at least 3 to 4 of this type submarines with upgraded versions

While many of your claims are unsubstantiated, I would only say --

"aapke muh mein ghee shakkar"

 

[rahul_rao]

yes and when it was asked why India was refusing this much capable missile defense then Indian side said they had got something better than S300, possibly from Israel. but later the we got the news that India had built two layers of missile defence, one Russian S300 and one from israel. but since india singed about $2.5bn missile defense development deal with Israel in 2009, we got the news that India then started replacing the old Israeli missile defense along with S300 with the newest version of Israeli and S400 of Russian since 2009. I even heard that Russia delivered first batch of S400 to India, not to Russia itself, because India was on the higher risk of any sudden war than Russia since 26/11 2008. but, as the effectiveness of missile defence is still in question, until we get S-500 and one that India may develop something by itself also while working with Israel currently, Indian side always keep their missile defense hidden so that they dont have to say about the exact location/ combined approach of both the missile defence layers.

India is one of CHina and Russia whose defence plans are always hidden. like their 'secret' nuclear submarine deal with Russia and one more would come within next 2 years while I read somewhere that IN is expecting at least 3 to 4 of this type submarines with upgraded versions

coooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

 

[acetophenol]

Why to buy rafales or eft which were now top 2 competitors of mmrca deal?
Just buy 2 mig 35's instead of one rafale or one euro fighter typhoon

I heard that trials at bangalore,jaisalmer and leh were completed,
EFT and RAFALE occupied first two positions.

Why mig 35 werw discussed in various threads and topics where greatness of mig 35 is described ,which proves it can win the deal .
Here we are going to discus why 2 migs.

Rafale/eft costs $85million so for that cost we can buy 2 migs as its unit cost is $ 38 million.

Why 2 migs?

Increases no. of squadrons as we buy more no. of migs

Less cost : We can get 2 mig 35 for cost of one rafale or eft

cost of rafale/eft=$85million
cost of 2 migs = 2*40=$80 million

More fuel

2 migs can carry more fuel, while combat both can undergo air air refuelling ie
if one carries more fuel and other carries more payload if fuel becomes less in one mig other can transfer fuel to other in case of emergency

More fuel means more range!

Rafale eft can carry 9000 kg of payload
where as 2 migs can carry 15000 kg payload, so double advantage.

Same rcs
While on a mission migs can move with mach speeds one hidden behind other which can go in formation at high speeds to confuse the enemy to think that one plane is coming.

Strategic bombing

Two migs can be useful for strategic bombing instead of high rcs strategic bomber

Both migs can bomb parallely at a time in two places which is not possible in case of single rafale. It has to come again to bomb parallely.

More air superiority

Being the most maneuverable fighter , 2 migs can carry double air to air weapons which increases its dominance.

More survivability

Two migs at dog fight means two different rcs which confuses a2 a missiles to decide which target to be hit.

So 2 migs can prove to be more dominant even at dog fight or strategic/tactical bombing

so better to buy 252-400 migs instead of 126-200 rafale/eft


This proves disadvantageous only in case of light weight air craft carrier where size of planes and their weight becomes important. In this case rafales can be used

Questions and opinions are welcomed heartily.

what guarantee is there that "2" migs can operate together all the time?

 

[illusion8]

yes and when it was asked why India was refusing this much capable missile defense then Indian side said they had got something better than S300, possibly from Israel. but later the we got the news that India had built two layers of missile defence, one Russian S300 and one from israel. but since india singed about $2.5bn missile defense development deal with Israel in 2009, we got the news that India then started replacing the old Israeli missile defense along with S300 with the newest version of Israeli and S400 of Russian since 2009. I even heard that Russia delivered first batch of S400 to India, not to Russia itself, because India was on the higher risk of any sudden war than Russia since 26/11 2008. but, as the effectiveness of missile defence is still in question, until we get S-500 and one that India may develop something by itself also while working with Israel currently, Indian side always keep their missile defense hidden so that they dont have to say about the exact location/ combined approach of both the missile defence layers.

India is one of CHina and Russia whose defence plans are always hidden. like their 'secret' nuclear submarine deal with Russia and one more would come within next 2 years while I read somewhere that IN is expecting at least 3 to 4 of this type submarines with upgraded versions

Wow dude..r u serious, I hope all of that's true..but u seem to know a lot of inside stuff, how come??

 

[rahul_rao]

Why to buy rafales or eft which were now top 2 competitors of mmrca deal?
Just buy 2 mig 35's instead of one rafale or one euro fighter typhoon

I heard that trials at bangalore,jaisalmer and leh were completed,
EFT and RAFALE occupied first two positions.

Why mig 35 werw discussed in various threads and topics where greatness of mig 35 is described ,which proves it can win the deal .
Here we are going to discus why 2 migs.

Rafale/eft costs $85million so for that cost we can buy 2 migs as its unit cost is $ 38 million.

Why 2 migs?

Increases no. of squadrons as we buy more no. of migs

Less cost : We can get 2 mig 35 for cost of one rafale or eft

cost of rafale/eft=$85million
cost of 2 migs = 2*40=$80 million

More fuel

2 migs can carry more fuel, while combat both can undergo air air refuelling ie
if one carries more fuel and other carries more payload if fuel becomes less in one mig other can transfer fuel to other in case of emergency

More fuel means more range!

Rafale eft can carry 9000 kg of payload
where as 2 migs can carry 15000 kg payload, so double advantage.

Same rcs
While on a mission migs can move with mach speeds one hidden behind other which can go in formation at high speeds to confuse the enemy to think that one plane is coming.

Strategic bombing

Two migs can be useful for strategic bombing instead of high rcs strategic bomber

Both migs can bomb parallely at a time in two places which is not possible in case of single rafale. It has to come again to bomb parallely.

More air superiority

Being the most maneuverable fighter , 2 migs can carry double air to air weapons which increases its dominance.

More survivability

Two migs at dog fight means two different rcs which confuses a2 a missiles to decide which target to be hit.

So 2 migs can prove to be more dominant even at dog fight or strategic/tactical bombing

so better to buy 252-400 migs instead of 126-200 rafale/eft


This proves disadvantageous only in case of light weight air craft carrier where size of planes and their weight becomes important. In this case rafales can be used

Questions and opinions are welcomed heartily.

cost of mig-35 after mkising and cost of maintenance and infrastructure..... it will become quite equal to rafale..... i think so

 

[tvsram1992]

cost of mig-35 after mkising and cost of maintenance and infrastructure..... it will become quite equal to rafale..... i think so

u think Rafale wont have addons and it will not be upgraded ?
aesa radar,developments....

 

[tvsram1992]

what guarantee is there that "2" migs can operate together all the time?

come on buddy, its not the guarantee its the intention

 

[ptltejas]

We need thin person with gun rather pahelwan with gada or sword. No doubt migs sukhoi r batter but they r hard hite. Rafale is thin kungfu fighter like jacky chan. We not need pahelwan with kungfu.

 

[tvsram1992]

We need thin person with gun rather pahelwan with gada or sword. No doubt migs sukhoi r batter but they r hard hite. Rafale is thin kungfu fighter like jacky chan. We not need pahelwan with kungfu.

Seriously speaking a single Mig35 or Su35 can play with a single Rafale or even with Eurofighter in a dog fight . Dont underestimate Mig35 just because it was rejected by us . Just our requirements were indeed better satisfied by Rafale technically and politically!!!

 

[sancho]

Seriously speaking a single Mig35 or Su35 can play with a single Rafale or even with Eurofighter in a dog fight .

Only because they have TVC?

Both, Rafale and EF have highly agile and maneuverable designs, with a much higher focus on close combats than the US counterparts, which they constantly beat as well. Not to forget that they have the better WVR missiles with MICA IR and IRIS-T as well.
In BVR they score with lower RCS, the better BVR missile, latest EWS jamming and passive detection features..., and even the Su 35 PESA will not be a big advantage compared to Rafale and EF with the AESA radars that were proposed in MMRCA.

The Su 35 will defenitely be a more serious opponent for Rafale or EF than a Mig 35, but it's not the TVC that makes it so deadly, but mainly the RCS reductions and new avionics.

 

[21 Dec 2012]

Only because they have TVC?

Both, Rafale and EF have highly agile and maneuverable designs, with a much higher focus on close combats than the US counterparts, which they constantly beat as well. Not to forget that they have the better WVR missiles with MICA IR and IRIS-T as well.
In BVR they score with lower RCS, the better BVR missile, latest EWS jamming and passive detection features..., and even the Su 35 PESA will not be a big advantage compared to Rafale and EF with the AESA radars that were proposed in MMRCA.

The Su 35 will defenitely be a more serious opponent for Rafale or EF than a Mig 35, but it's not the TVC that makes it so deadly, but mainly the RCS reductions and new avionics.

Plus High of-boresight missiles will soon make dogfights 'obsolete'.