What's new

2*MIG 35 >> RAFALE/EFT

People are still into this after the L1 has been named. :smitten:

Don't worry MiG-35 fans, the follow up order will most probably be MiG-35 if HAL's record of Laziness and babudom is taken into account. They will surely screw up and inflate the cost to gigantic proportions, like they are currently doing with the Su-30MKI. If not for RTE and CAG, HAL's incompetence would have been cleverly concealed. Further more-

Another cause for concern is the Sukhoi. Its delivery schedule is crawling in the ongoing Phase IV of production. Furthermore, delays in setting up the overhaulrepair facility have thrown up upkeep challenges. The first two Sukhois are now awaiting overhaul, the sources say.

The IAF has around 150 Sukhois and the estimated target to be reached in phases is 272. Worryingly, however, HAL has been unable to absorb the technology and start manufacturing Sukhois with the maximum indigenous content. So, its aim of supplying 12 aircraft every year appears to be difficult to achieve.

The Russian aircraft are being produced under licence. HAL should have absorbed the technology in Phase IV and enhanced the local content in manufacturing to about 50 or 55 per cent, which it hasn't.

Then there is the delay in establishing the engine overhaul facilities, which should have been ready in February.

su_301-enlarge_051612082121.gif


Delay in delivery of Sukhois and jet trainers hits IAF operations : North News - India Today
- 16 May 2012

Rafale is an incredibly complex piece of hardware, much more than the Su-30MKI, I dare say. They have literally squeezed every known latest Avionics known to the french state into that small airframe and still made it tougher than the MKI making it carry 9.5 tonnes(1.5 tonnes more than MKI). There is a greater chance of Pigs flying than HAL can mastering this tech. As a result most components will have to be imported INDIVIDUALLY then installed by HAL which will increase costs astronomically. MiG-35 in the IAF is not an IF but a WHEN.

It's so funny that we see history repeating itself! Back in 1983, when IAF bought the first 40 Mirages, and said a follow up order will be made after the 40 has been delivered, it instead went and bought the MiG-29B at $11 million per piece, compared to the single engined Mirage-2000 which costed $25 million per piece! Now we are going the see the same story repeat again, but this time, both Dassault and HAL will be the culprits instead of only Dassault's price back in the 80's.




Couple of inaccuracies I spotted while quickly scanning through the topic.

Rafale's TWR is not "similar" to the MiG-35, but it is clearly less. MiG-35 has a TWR close to Eurofighter with its new RD-33MK engines and low empty weight. Unless IAF can get the Rafale with ECO engines, it is highly unlikely it will surpass the MiG-35 in TWR.

MiG-35's wing loading should not be calculated only by taking the Wing Area/Aspect ratio. MiG-29/35's body provides some 20% of the lift, IIRC.

MiG-35 higher speed of Mach 2.25 Speed cannot be used in dogfights. It can however can be extremely useful during scramble-intercept missions.

MiG-35's empty weight will not be equal to MiG-29K. MiG-29K has hydraulics to fold the wings, strengthened landing gear, Tail hook and its relevant attach mechanisms to it's main body.. etc etc. MiG-29M's empty weight is around 11500 and it doesn't use much composites while the MiG-35 will be made mostly with Composites. So getting 11000kgs is not impossible, but is a bit difficult.

MiG-35's avionics are clearly inferior to Rafale's.
 
Couple of inaccuracies I spotted while quickly scanning through the topic.

Rafale's TWR is not "similar" to the MiG-35, but it is clearly less. MiG-35 has a TWR close to Eurofighter with its new RD-33MK engines and low empty weight. Unless IAF can get the Rafale with ECO engines, it is highly unlikely it will surpass the MiG-35 in TWR...

...MiG-35's empty weight will not be equal to MiG-29K. MiG-29K has hydraulics to fold the wings, strengthened landing gear, Tail hook and its relevant attach mechanisms to it's main body.. etc etc. MiG-29M's empty weight is around 11500 and it doesn't use much composites while the MiG-35 will be made mostly with Composites. So getting 11000kgs is not impossible, but is a bit difficult.

- the Mig 35 is not made mainly with composites, but has replaced certain parts with composites and added RAM coatings, just like the Mig 29K, since both are have the same base

- it was supposed to get bigger wings, to increase fuel and add one more hardpoint

- it was supposed to get a bigger AESA radar and TVC

All these points adds weight to the Mig 35 compared to the 29K, so the speculated 11t empty are not possible and the weight would be closer to 12t empty (Mig 29K 12.2ts).
Also, the AB thrust of the Mig is the same as EFs, but with around 1t more weight, the TWR is lower as well. The Rafale has lower AB thrust, but weighs clearly less too, which puts in the same TWR class. However, the important point is the dry thrust, because the Mig offers only 2 x 50kN, just like the Rafale, while the EF has even 2 x 60kN and with the lower weights they will have clearly better dry TWR.

Btw, when scrambled, Rafale and EF offers not only high maximum speeds, but they can supercruise with dry thrust too!
 
Yes, it is not, because the current prototype is not even a regular prototype but only a modified MiG-29K airframe, hence the increase in wing area and etc. It even has no air brakes, and its associated hydraulics and uses rudders, just the like Su-35. So that's another weight loss. The 11t is the promised weight IF IAF agrees to fund the MiG-35 project. They want the IAF to fund the development, like the IN did to the MiG-29K. Even so, they have increased the composites in the prototype when compared to the standard MiG-29K. MiG-29M too has the same number of hardpoints like the MiG-35, and still it has an empty weight of only around 11500. It all basically comes down to funding. With funding they can increase the composite %, and bring down the empty weight, and bring the wing area to that of the standard MiG-29. Given their track record with the MiG-29K, where they brought down the empty weight by 400-500kg(with a little funding from the IN) when compared to the first MiG-29K prototype which first flew in 1988 and then shelved, I'm inclined to believe they can do what they are saying.

Scramble Intercepts are carried out with maximum AB, to achieve maximum speeds, to get to the target the fastest way possible. The idea behind Super cruise is only to reduce the amount of time in enemy territory through fast ingress and egress.
 
Yes, it is not, because the current prototype is not even a regular prototype but only a modified MiG-29K airframe,

The MiG-35 prototype was more or less a MiG-29OVT. And that was not a derivative of the MiG-29K, but a tech demonstrator illustrating the advantages of a larger Fulcrum and TVNs.

The 11t is the promised weight IF IAF agrees to fund the MiG-35 project. They want the IAF to fund the development, like the IN did to the MiG-29K. Even so, they have increased the composites in the prototype when compared to the standard MiG-29K. MiG-29M too has the same number of hardpoints like the MiG-35, and still it has an empty weight of only around 11500. It all basically comes down to funding.

Its all fine for MiG if they believe they can achieve everything needed to turn the MiG-35 into a proper international mid-weight contender, but let me ask you this: what does India gain from funding the MiG-35?

The support we'd receive for it would be lackadaisical at best. Technological gains would be very limited. And the Air Force has already implied they're not interested in more Fulcrum platforms. If this is about the worry that HAL won't be able to absorb the Rafale's technology in time, well, that's why France are gonna be responsible for setting up facilities and training schemes in India. And France tend to be a little more reliable in these sort of issues than Russia is.


The idea behind Super cruise is only to reduce the amount of time in enemy territory through fast ingress and egress.

It also reduces the aircraft's vulnerability to IRSTs at range.
 
@Mig-21 Its always a better option to replace Mig21s with Mig35s . On the other hand LCA can be made as interceptor and CAS aircraft which will find more use in war . On the other hand yes i agree Migs mach speed cannot be used in dog fight but that speed can certainly be used to evade the missiles and force the enemy to come into dog fight . Also we used to have 1000+Migs once which eventually cannot be replaced by LCA . Not to mention our enemys also have aircrafts that are capable enough . We could have gone for few Rafales + Large no of Mig35s instead of Mirage upgrade as we could easily get a Mig35 for what we are paying for Mirage upgrade and also Mirage upgrade will take 9 years with in which we could have inducted equal no . of Mig35 and we would have got some experience also by then .
The current fall of Rupee value will have a serious impact on MRCA . Iam not saying the deal will be cancelled because of it but you know how much impact will it have in increase of costs on components and other things . I think Russia will accept our rupees :undecided: . 150+ Mig35s also can save our rupee . What you say sancho?
 
Well, that's what they say but, one of the MiG-35 'prototypes' actually had the fold-able wings! Poor MiG. And what does India gain? Precious foreign exchange and time I guess. Mark my words, HAL, as it always does, will screw this up. What makes you think the french not be like the russians or the brits? Giving swift approval during war time is one thing, but making profit during peace time is another. Already HAL is blaming BAe for poor support, and BAe blaming HAL in the Hawk saga. The blame game is everywhere, whether Russian or not.

@tvs- yes, MiG-35 would have been nice if ordered in bulk, but rafale has won this round. No use arguing against it.
 
The 11t is the promised weight IF IAF agrees to fund the MiG-35 project. They want the IAF to fund the development, like the IN did to the MiG-29K. Even so, they have increased the composites in the prototype when compared to the standard MiG-29K. MiG-29M too has the same number of hardpoints like the MiG-35


- promised doesn't meant that's the reality, they promised a 200Km range AESA too, but according to Phazotron specs, the max is 160Km only, let alone that they have many problems with the weight of the radar

- no they haven't! You have to understand that the Mig 29K as well as the Mig 35 are further developments, based on the Mig 29M/M2 base. That means, be it design or materials, both are similar to the M/M2, with only minor differences (naval changes, increased wings). Sukhoi has nothing to do with Mikoyan, so only because the Su 35 deletes the air brake, doesn't mean Mig does it as well, especially since even the K version still has them, although they don't need them for carrier langings. Check minute 0:08:



- no, the real Mig 35 was about to get 5 x wingstations (therefor needed bigger wings) compared to 4 x wingstations at M/M2 and K:

mig-3511.jpg



Scramble Intercepts are carried out with maximum AB, to achieve maximum speeds, to get to the target the fastest way possible. The idea behind Super cruise is only to reduce the amount of time in enemy territory through fast ingress and egress.

Only as long as possible, because you can't maintain AB flight for too long with limited fuel anyway. Therefor EF and Rafale taking off with AB as well as using it at the begining of the flight and than changing to SC flight, is more fuel efficient and faster.

The MiG-35 prototype was more or less a MiG-29OVT. And that was not a derivative of the MiG-29K, but a tech demonstrator illustrating the advantages of a larger Fulcrum and TVNs.

Actually the Russians provided different prototypes during MMRCA, that they called Mig 35, but that wasn't the real one. The blue one with the 154 serial was the same, that they offered earlier as Mig 29SMT. They simply changed the paint and some features, the one that did the trials where even just modified Mig 29Ks (with the provision for the hook, but no hook integrated for weight reduction). It's basically the same issue that we had with Saab and Gripen, because they used older Gripen C/Ds for the main part of the trials and just provideded the Gripen Demo for the last part, while a real Gripen E/F still doesn't exist.

What you say sancho?

As I often stated, the Mig would have been the worst choice ever and the simple fact that IAF prefered more Mirage 2000-5s over more Mig 29SMTs should make clear that too. It is simply an old fighter design with some minor upgrades, but mainly in the A2A role again, while in A2G it will remain on of the most limited. Moreover, the fighter should be in service for up to 40 years and with it's old design and possibly one of the biggest RCS in the competition (possibly even the biggest), the future potential was way too limited to be a useful fighter for IAF.
In fact, the only real advantage it offered was the experience IAF already has with Mig 29s, but apart from that it falls short in nearly all areas!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As I often stated, the Mig would have been the worst choice ever and the simple fact that IAF prefered more Mirage 2000-5s over more Mig 29SMTs should make clear that too. It is simply an old fighter design with some minor upgrades, but mainly in the A2A role again, while in A2G it will remain on of the most limited. Moreover, the fighter should be in service for up to 40 years and with it's old design and possibly one of the biggest RCS in the competition (possibly even the biggest), the future potential was way too limited to be a useful fighter for IAF.
In fact, the only real advantage it offered was the experience IAF already has with Mig 29s, but apart from that it falls short in nearly all areas!
Gripen and F16 would have been worse choices :P You sure Mirage 2000-5 was preferred over Mig29SMT? At that time we were looking for few strike aircraft + few air superiority aircraft . If we had gone for either of Mig29/Mirage there would have been no MRCA at all . Also one reason why we didnt go for Mig29s was we are having option of better , heavy air superiority aircraft Su30mki .
 
Gripen and F16 would have been worse choices :P You sure Mirage 2000-5 was preferred over Mig29SMT? At that time we were looking for few strike aircraft + few air superiority aircraft . If we had gone for either of Mig29/Mirage there would have been no MRCA at all . Also one reason why we didnt go for Mig29s was we are having option of better , heavy air superiority aircraft Su30mki .

Yes, that was confirmed by several different IAF chiefs and even a former IN admiral in different reports. The MRCA competition was needed to get more industrial advantage, that's why no simple follow procurement was done. After MRCA competition was scrapped, IAF tried to by 2nd hand Mirage 2000-5s from Qatar as a stop gap and again not any 2nd hand Mig 29, so there is no doubt about the refusal of the Mig.
Btw, of course the fact that we alread have any good Russian weapons and techs through MKI speakes against the Mig too, but also that it doesn't complement the MKI like the Mirage can.
 
Yes, that was confirmed by several different IAF chiefs and even a former IN admiral in different reports. The MRCA competition was needed to get more industrial advantage, that's why no simple follow procurement was done. After MRCA competition was scrapped, IAF tried to by 2nd hand Mirage 2000-5s from Qatar as a stop gap and again not any 2nd hand Mig 29, so there is no doubt about the refusal of the Mig.
Btw, of course the fact that we alread have any good Russian weapons and techs through MKI speakes against the Mig too, but also that it doesn't complement the MKI like the Mirage can.

add to that IAF din't go for mig designed FGFA but a sukhoi variant of the jet clearly shows IAF now has got saturated with mig's.
 
Yes, that was confirmed by several different IAF chiefs and even a former IN admiral in different reports. The MRCA competition was needed to get more industrial advantage, that's why no simple follow procurement was done. After MRCA competition was scrapped, IAF tried to by 2nd hand Mirage 2000-5s from Qatar as a stop gap and again not any 2nd hand Mig 29, so there is no doubt about the refusal of the Mig.
Btw, of course the fact that we alread have any good Russian weapons and techs through MKI speakes against the Mig too, but also that it doesn't complement the MKI like the Mirage can.
We didnt go for second hand Mig29s as we are getting Mkis that has same role as Mig29s at that time . Iam not denying the capabilities of Mirage but Mig29s were successful in escorting Mirages in war . It was French who withdrew Mirage in the favor of Rafale ? . :undecided:
Can you give me any link as i feel SMTs have upgraded strike features too .
 
add to that IAF din't go for mig designed FGFA but a sukhoi variant of the jet clearly shows IAF now has got saturated with mig's.
Wrong analogy . Mig1.44 was never in the Indian competition . Russians preferred to go with Sukhoi heavy aircraft rater than Migs light weight one and awarded them contract to develop PAKFA . Also the success of Su aircrafts in their own AF and Indian Mkis was a factor in giving contract to Su . Now its an aircraft of UAC where Mikoyan also has share .

There are claims we might co develop Light weight fighter based on Mig1.44 with Russia as another 5th gen aircraft .
 
Back
Top Bottom