Unwanted Fighter : MIG-35

[Zabaniyah]

Sir g sorry but these 2 words just cannot be associated with mig series. every one knows that Mig29 is cheap to buy but highly expensive to maintain and operate. Although i do like mig35 but problem is that Airforce is not a machli mandi so you cann't buy items just like that.

Depends. Operating cost/hour is a very unique number according to each and every user.

The MiG-35 isn't bad, but they should add more stuff into it.

 

[MiG-21]

I am not convinced Mig-35 is an easy kill for an AIm-9X, only possible if it is flying without armament.

No one knows the kill probability of Aim-9x in head-on shots, tail-shots, or kill probability of any missiles for that matter. All we know is that if BVR missiles are 100% effective, then there would be no need for WVR missiles, and if WVR missiles are 100% effective then there would be no Guns.

Only in a real war, war between the big powers who actually manufacture such systems backed up by their overwhelming military-industrial complex, would the full weakness of such weapon systems would come into the limelight. The wars after WW-2 has been a war between unequals mostly, one side having AWACS, JSTARS, Jamming and everything, the other side flying their outdated and export variant jets.

In any case, MiG-35's High Maneuverability + TVC = High instantaneous turn rate. Add HMS & RVV-MD into the mix, then you get a force to be reckoned with.

 

[Killswitch]

MIG has major problems:

Low production rates

Horrible support


For these 2 reasons I would not suggest nay air force choose MIG as its provider of front line fighters.

Sukhoi is a much better choice.

 

[MiG-21]

The support for Sukhoi isn't that great either. It just that you don't hear about it much. Russian low rank babus are generally sloppy when it comes to forwarding spares and after sales support request through all that red tape. We have learnt to live with it though.

"Dec 16/11: The Hindustan Times reports that perennial problems with Russian spares & reliability have become an urgent issue for the SU-30MKI fleet now “Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is expected to red-flag [SU-30] serviceability, product support and pending upgrade… at the annual [Russian] summit meeting…. Top government sources said that Air Headquarters has urgently requested the Prime Minister to raise the issue of engine serviceability with his Russian counterpart after few incidents of engine failures…. the top brass has conveyed to government that “shaft bearing failures” have occurred in some [AL-31FP] engines. “In peacetime, the fighter can land on the other engine but this can be a life and death situation in adverse conditions, said a senior official.”
India Ordering, Modernizing SU-30MKIs

 

[GR!FF!N]

Depends. Operating cost/hour is a very unique number according to each and every user.

The MiG-35 isn't bad, but they should add more stuff into it.

BD is going for Mig-29..right???which version??and why they are not going for Mig-35 which has almost same cost???

 

[sancho]

MiG-35 has a big chance of making it to IAF if HAL screws up rafale production(which it will IMO), like it is screwing up MKI. After 126 fighters, the follow up order is still up for grabs. It is going to be the same story of Mirage-2000 vs MiG-29 procurement all over again. MiG-35 with 11 tonne empty weight, AESA, 5 hardpoints(although only 4 is shown on the prototypes)and thrust vectoring is a formidable plane. MiG-35's final prototype with composites and everything is still isn't ready, as usual funding problems.

How is HAL screwing up MKI production? They 11t of Mig 35 are just a myth, just like 7t payload, or 200Km radar detection. It is based on the same airframe as the Mig 29K, which already incorporates the composite changes, but the 35 will have bigger wings, so adds weight here. The addition of TVNs and a way bigger AESA radar (that already causes a lot of weight problems) will add even further weight, which makes in more equal to the 29K closer to 12ts.
Btw, even if a follow order of a fighter would be needed, it will be one of the types that will be added in this decade (MKI, Rafale, LCA, or FGFA/AMCA), which rules out the Mig anyway.

Depends. Operating cost/hour is a very unique number according to each and every user.

True, but IAF operates several different Russian and western fighters and only the Russian versions are know to be very costly to operate. But while that is the case for the Flankers mainly because of the weight class, most countries have phased out the Migs for quality problems and high operational costs. I know it from German Luftwaffe as well, which phased them out because of the high costs and spare problems. Malaysia will do it now as well and opt for a modern fighter to replace their Mig 29s, even earlier than really needed. Interestingly they have no similar issues with their Flankers, just like most Su 30 operators!

BD is going for Mig-29..right???which version??and why they are not going for Mig-35 which has almost same cost???

Because India was the first country where it was offered, although most of the upgrade was still under development only.

 

[SQ8]

Oscar - I am not convinced Mig-35 is an easy kill for an AIm-9X, only possible if it is flying without armament.

No, even with armament.. future fights will no longer be the twisting and turning of older days. These fights will be quick merges, quick missile launch and quick escape. With current missiles boasting 60G manoeuvres and 98% kill probability.. the TVC simply becomes useless for such a scenario where turning is no longer much of a factor.

 

[MiG-21]

How is HAL screwing up MKI production?

Cost overruns, Missed deadlines, failure to indigenous.. list is endless.
IAF Sukhoi fleet production runs into bottleneck cloud : North, News - India Today
If they do that to the MKI, rafale which is more complex is a sure shot quagmire waiting to happen.

They 11t of Mig 35 are just a myth, just like 7t payload, or 200Km radar detection. It is based on the same airframe as the Mig 29K, which already incorporates the composite changes, but the 35 will have bigger wings, so adds weight here. The addition of TVNs and a way bigger AESA radar (that already causes a lot of weight problems) will add even further weight, which makes in more equal to the 29K closer to 12ts.

You do are aware that MiG-29K is carrier fighter right? Just for reference, the empty weight difference between Su-27S and Su-33 is 2.5 tonnes!
And what makes you so sure that MiG-35 won't incorporate more composites than the MiG-29K? Back up with links.
Both AE and ME weigh 220kgs. http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/78/zhukae2bp9.jpg/sr=1
Back up your 200km is a myth with links.

Btw, even if a follow order of a fighter would be needed, it will be one of the types that will be added in this decade (MKI, Rafale, LCA, or FGFA/AMCA), which rules out the Mig anyway.

Who said that MRCA will be fully inducted within this decade? FGFA induction will be completed within this decade?

 

[MilSpec]

The relevance of such manoeuvres in today's age of high-g ..off boresight missiles is another factor.
The Mig-35 may have vowed the audience.. but any such aircraft would be easy kill for an Aim-9X shot 70 degrees off boresight.
Its advantage was in the commonality it offered, and the Mil bus you mentioned..
But it would seem it came up short on the man machine interface and adaptability.

Just because It can do pugachevs cobras and tail slides at will, doesn't mean we need to discount its supersonic performance. It is still a 2.35 mach capable extremely maneuverable with 1.146 TWR and agile aircraft with exceptional missiles like the R74M RVV-MD nd the RVV-SD, who knows maybe we could even get the R37's for the machine. As far as high off bore-sight is concerned, americans learned it from the russians to begin with.

MKI has, FGFA and AMCA will have TVC, so what's the point? The fact is, it offers nothing that we wouldn't have already through MKI and Super 30 by 2015, be it TVC, Russian AESA, IRST or weapons, while any western fighter offers alternative capabilities to IAF, which gives tactical advantages. One of the main reasons I prefered Rafale was, that it complements MKI perfectly, unlike the Mig 35 that is based on similar advantages, but not as advanced. Kargil showed how important it is to have advantages, be it in terms of fighter with different capabilities or different weapons itself, that's why from operational terms (besides it's individuell disadvantages) the Mig never had a chance in IAF anymore. Remember, even in the earlier MRCA, the Mirage 2000-f, Gripen C/D and F16 B52s were prefered from IAF over Mig 29SMTs!

Haha,

FGFA and AMCA are long way from from being operational. Please do explain what tactical advantage western platforms provide over russian ones. as far as kargil, please remember mig 29S operated by IAF are purely air superiority aircraft, they were not meant for A2G missions. Mirage 2000's that pounded kargil were escorted by Mig 29 which gained BVR radar locks on F16 keeping them on the pakistani side. They performed flawlessly. Mig 35 on the other hand is multirole aircraft, or an air superiority aircraft masquerading as a multi-role (something I like about it). As far as I can tell you Mig 35 was actually being discussed during the end of vajpayee government as an interim solution, but then situations changed, Mig 29K was on the books to keep MAPO happy, S Ivanov is a brilliant tactician and basically facilitated Indian resources in other directions instead of mig 35. Indeed there are some advantages of choosing a western fighters but the margin was extremely small, and the way the media made the mig 35 look is far from the truth. If you truly want to understand what it brings to the table, imagine 100 of these in PAF's hand, and what nightmare it will bring to IAF.

 

[sancho]

Cost overruns, Missed deadlines, failure to indigenous.. list is endless.

Are we talking about MKI or IJT here? Because the article is talking BS about the MKI production. They even say that we have 150 x MKIs now, while 50 x of them were made in Russia and the rest by HAL, which leaves just 40 x fighters according to the initial plan, aimed to be finishing in 2015. So roughly 10 fighters a year and even if HAL would keep this pace, they would finish in time!
I am more worried about the Super 30s, that should be produced at the same line till 2017, because it's still not finalised and how should HAL integrate the changes into the productionline then?
The IJT development is indeed a problem and they have to be criticised for that, but we shouldn't mix up things here!

You do are aware that MiG-29K is carrier fighter right? Just for reference, the empty weight difference between Su-27S and Su-33 is 2.5 tonnes!
And what makes you so sure that MiG-35 won't incorporate more composites than the MiG-29K? Back up with links.

Of course, but navalising a modern fighter adds hardly around 500Kgs (see, Rafale, Gripen, expected weight increase for N-LCA), which easily will be equalised again by the bigger wings, TVC, OLS K and the AESA radar of Mig 35, so both Migs comes at similar weight. Btw:

Zhuk ME, 624mm diameter, 220Kg
Zhuk AE (early prototype), 575mm diameter, 120Km range, 220Kg mass,
Zhuk AE (specs from Aero India last year), 688mm, 160 Km range, 275Kg mass

So even the early AESA you mentioned was heavier than Zhuk ME with a similar diameter and it was reported that the version that might be able to achieve 200Km range was way bigger and heavier than what we have seen so far.
Wrt composites, again the Mig 29K and the Mig 35 are based on the M/M2 airframe family base:

New unified family of the
MiG-29K/KUB, MiG-29M/M2, MiG-35/MiG-35D fighters

????? ?????????? Opera Mini

They share the same design and materials, the same engine and even most avionics, the only difference are some specialisations, or upgrades. As mentioned in the initial MRCA competition they offered the SMT, based on the M2 airframe and with TVC, that's why they took the same prototype (with the serial 154) later with minor changes as Mig 35 demonstrator again.

Who said that MRCA will be fully inducted within this decade? FGFA induction will be completed within this decade?

Nobody, I said if we need more fighters, we simply can add more of the types that we will induct anyway in this decade. That means if Rafale production is delayed, we can add more MKIs, LCAs, or later FGFAs or AMCAs since we will have production lines for these. There is no need to add another type, especially if it's that old and limited capable!

 

[sancho]

Please do explain what tactical advantage western platforms provide over russian ones. as far as kargil, please remember mig 29S operated by IAF are purely air superiority aircraft, they were not meant for A2G missions. Mirage 2000's that pounded kargil were escorted by Mig 29 which gained BVR radar locks on F16 keeping them on the pakistani side.

Back then precision strike, today BVR and deep strike!

Durng Kargil, PAF was in clear disadvantage not only to Mig 29, but also to Mig 21s and Su 30Ks that we had, because all these Russian fighters were BVR capable, but PAFs fighters weren't. However, that didn't changed the war, because the Mig 27s with dumb bombs, that were escorted by Mig 29s, failed to strike the targets propperly and were even shot down. Su 30 and Mig 29 wasn't able to do precision strikes either, but then the LGBs were integrated to Mirage and Jags and just a few hits won the war!

Similarly, IAF has no cruise missile strike capability today, MKI will changed that with Brahmos, but it has several limitations (numbers, weight, size, RCS), that's why the procurement of Scalp or other stand off weapons for Mirage 2000 and Rafale would give IAF an deep strike alternative to MKI and Brahmos => a tactical advantage!
In air combats Rafale (or EF) offers not only a tactical advantage, but a tactical edge! With features like a low signatures, Supercruise, high tech missile combos and long range passive detection, they offer capabilities which are not available in south or even east Asia today. They are simply more modern and comes with latest capabilities and are not only a slightly upgraded cold war fighter like the Mig.

If you truly want to understand what it brings to the table, imagine 100 of these in PAF's hand, and what nightmare it will bring to IAF.

Not at all, because PAF getting high numbers of a twin engine fighter that is expensive to operate, that has an old design and very few modern features, that comes with avionics, weapons and techs that IAF knows for decades, that makes them dependent on one of our allies which can pose restrictions..., would be a great advantage for us and not a disadvantage!

But that's not going to happen and now they have a chance to get J10B, a cost-effective fighter (which makes higher numbers more realistic than with Mig 35), with modern design, materials, avionics and a lower RCS. From their own ally, that would allow to customize it with foreign weapons or techs and of course indigenous once (Raad cruise missile) to make it even better.

Now tell me, which fighter would be the bigger threat for India? The J10 of course, because PAF would have the same reasons to reject the Mig 35 as IAF had to reject the F16IN.

 

[MiG-21]

Are we talking about MKI or IJT here? Because the article is talking BS about the MKI production. They even say that we have 150 x MKIs now, while 50 x of them were made in Russia and the rest by HAL, which leaves just 40 x fighters according to the initial plan, aimed to be finishing in 2015. So roughly 10 fighters a year and even if HAL would keep this pace, they would finish in time!
I am more worried about the Super 30s, that should be produced at the same line till 2017, because it's still not finalised and how should HAL integrate the changes into the productionline then?
The IJT development is indeed a problem and they have to be criticised for that, but we shouldn't mix up things here!

WTF are you talking about? Are you even aware of the 40 sukhois procured from Russia in the form of semi and complete knock down kits? Press Information Bureau English Releases Out of 230, 50 + 40 is from Russia. So out of 140 to be delivered by HAL they have only completed 60. And did you read about the indigenisation in the article? Even in the 60 delivered so far, they still haven't achieved indiginisation targets, and the HAL produced versions have more foreign content that it was supposed to have.

Of course, but navalising a modern fighter adds hardly around 500Kgs (see, Rafale, Gripen, expected weight increase for N-LCA), which easily will be equalised again by the bigger wings, TVC, OLS K and the AESA radar of Mig 35, so both Migs comes at similar weight. Btw:

Zhuk ME, 624mm diameter, 220Kg
Zhuk AE (early prototype), 575mm diameter, 120Km range, 220Kg mass,
Zhuk AE (specs from Aero India last year), 688mm, 160 Km range, 275Kg mass

So even the early AESA you mentioned was heavier than Zhuk ME with a similar diameter and it was reported that the version that might be able to achieve 200Km range was way bigger and heavier than what we have seen so far.

The 200km is for 5m2 RCS, genius! They already achieved 185km for 5m2 RCS (160km for 3m2) Russia claims 200 km range for MiG-35's Phazotron Zhuk AE
And what 120km? It's 130km! See the specs again!
130km for 3m2 and 148km for 5m2.
And it weighs only 55kgs extra, not the huge radar thing which you are imagining it to be.

They share the same design and materials, the same engine and even most avionics, the only difference are some specialisations, or upgrades. As mentioned in the initial MRCA competition they offered the SMT, based on the M2 airframe and with TVC, that's why they took the same prototype (with the serial 154) later with minor changes as Mig 35 demonstrator again.

That's because the MiG-35 prototype is still not complete. All they did was take old airframes and modify it.

Fact is MiG-29K is a damn heavy fighter, and it is heavy not because it enhances the structural strength throughout the airframe but only in the regions which require it to perform arrested landings and carrier specific modification like foldable wings, corrosive coatings and etc. Since it is not structurally strengthened overall and only adds weight in naval specific sections, it is only rated 8Gs max. While the MiG-35 final version will be rated 10Gs, which means it is going to be lighter and studier with more composites than the M/M2, which is rated only 9Gs! Composite materials can withstand more G forces than stressed aluminum because they are tougher than Al while adding less weight. Similarly, only the Su-33 is rated 8Gs, in the flanker family while all others are rated 9. Comparing other naval fighters with Russian one is spurious because, Russia is not well experienced in Carrier Aviation... they even got their first carrier only after India, that too a STOVL carrier.

Nobody, I said if we need more fighters, we simply can add more of the types that we will induct anyway in this decade. That means if Rafale production is delayed, we can add more MKIs, LCAs, or later FGFAs or AMCAs since we will have production lines for these. There is no need to add another type, especially if it's that old and limited capable!

Tell that to the IAF in 1980s where they added 2 same class of fighters because of cost constraints. IAF doesn't mind if it has more fighter types.. it has operated them before and it will operate it again. HAL screwing up Rafale production with cost overruns and failed timelines and failed indigenisation is a given.
Oh.. add more 15m2 RCS MKIs, LCA given the track record till now? yea right! FGFA which is bound to spill over to the next decade? Nice choices.

 

[Dash]

No, even with armament.. future fights will no longer be the twisting and turning of older days. These fights will be quick merges, quick missile launch and quick escape. With current missiles boasting 60G manoeuvres and 98% kill probability.. the TVC simply becomes useless for such a scenario where turning is no longer much of a factor.

I agree, however my POV was whatever capability Aim9x has the same capability R-77 has, and both are equipped with AESA, so it will be a fair fight. Russian fighters are also well eqipped with BVR missiles that can boast 60g and 98% kill probability.

But Oscar - Can we say this that WVR battels will be erased completely? because its not always fighter to fighter in a war.

 

[SQ8]

Just because It can do pugachevs cobras and tail slides at will, doesn't mean we need to discount its supersonic performance. It is still a 2.35 mach capable extremely maneuverable with 1.146 TWR and agile aircraft with exceptional missiles like the R74M RVV-MD nd the RVV-SD, who knows maybe we could even get the R37's for the machine. As far as high off bore-sight is concerned, americans learned it from the russians to begin with.

It will really not matter who learnt from whom, since the effectiveness of Missile systems will ensure that it still gets blown up..regardless of its manoeuvrability.
Whether by a Aim-9X or PL-10..
The IAF made a wise choice by going for the Rafale.. its a fighter that offers more bang for the buck compared to the Mig-35.
Moreover.. the IAF's new Mig-29 UPG's offer 80% to 85% of the Mig-35's capabilities anyway..
Also.. a Rafale may not have something as long ranged as the R-77M-PD.. but it has the ability to get close enough and possibly jam the radar of the Mig-35 long enough to ensure that it gets the kill and drops a bomb along the way. Such factors were undoubtedly weighed in the by the IAF when they took that decision.

I agree, however my POV was whatever capability Aim9x has the same capability R-77 has, and both are equipped with AESA, so it will be a fair fight. Russian fighters are also well eqipped with BVR missiles that can boast 60g and 98% kill probability.

But Oscar - Can we say this that WVR battels will be erased completely? because its not always fighter to fighter in a war.

The battle's will not be erased.. they will simply be different..
They wont last as long as they used to.. there will be little turning and burning..
it will be a quick run in , firing missiles.. popping flares like mad.. and running out..

Exactly, the chances of both forces ending blowing 80% of each other out is soo high.. that any manoeuvrability advances become irrelevant. What may be useful in such a fight...is greater SA for the pilot.. via a finely tuned man-machine interface.

It may not matter who has the longest ranged radar or missile.. but rather who has the machine that can set up a shot for its pilot in the simplest manner possible.

IT has been a certain surprise for me, that while many advances in speech recognition have come from Russian and Indian programmers.. none of them have implemented it in their fighters.

 

[sancho]

WTF are you talking about? Are you even aware of the 40 sukhois procured from Russia in the form of semi and complete knock down kits?

The source says clearly, expected final delivery around 2011 / 2012, but they wasn't inducted yet. Neither IRKUT, nor any Indian source confirmed that so far, especially the earlier always reports that. Not to mention that if there were any serious issues about HALs MKI production, MoD would have ordered Super 30s via Irkut again and didn't added the 40 to HALs productionline.

The 200km is for 5m2 RCS, genius!

AESA radars take 3m2 targets as the base, not like older puls doppler radars and the same applies to Zhuk AE, you just need to read to see that:

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/4484/zhukaemj2.jpg

And it weighs only 55kgs extra, not the huge radar thing which you are imagining it to be.

55Kgs for an increase of 68mm compared to Zhuk ME, the one they promised with 200Km has must have a way bigger diameter and therefor way higher weight. As mentioned, it was reported that they had changed the diameter in the prototypes several times because of weight issues.

Tell that to the IAF in 1980s where they added 2 same class of fighters because of cost constraints.

Because more M2Ks were too costly and we had no other options, today we have money and are inducting 4 different types of fighters. Simply logic + offical statements from MoD and IAF about its, that's why speculating about additional fighter types doesn't really makes sense.

Oh.. add more 15m2 RCS MKIs

You do know that we will have Su 30s soon right? They will have the same composite/RAM changes as the Migs and don't need external fuel tanks unlike the Mig, which translates to a similar RCS as Migs with external payloads.