Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 544

Thread: MiG-29 Fulcrum

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Polish/Australian - living in Melbourne
    Posts
    199
    New MiG-35 (967) picture. 4 Kh-29 and 2 R-77.


  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,241
    ^What a beauty. Too bad it came 10 years too late. Unless India or Venezuela buy it I don't see much of a future for this fighter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanker_man View Post
    Did you not read my post above ???

    With its folding wings and tailplanes, plus the folding tailcone and nose pitot, the 'footprint' of the Su-33 on Kuznetsov's deck and hangars is actually LESS than that of the MiG-29K.

    Yes, Kuznetsov does have under deck hangars - served by two deck-edge lifts (elevators).

    Ken
    You're forgetting that the MiG-29K also has folding wings, nose and tailfins. And while the Su-33 may have more potential as a platform, the cost of reopening the assembly line along with the upgrades necessary for it to beat the MiG-29K means it's better to just buy the MiGs. That was the Russian Navy's decision in the end.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,481
    Serbia is probably a better prospect than Venezuela. It might even rack up a handful of other small sales, but unless the MMRCA contract is won the Fulcrum is indeed destined to play a niche role, it seems.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Malmesbury UK
    Posts
    3,260
    Quote Originally Posted by Witcha View Post
    ^
    You're forgetting that the MiG-29K also has folding wings, nose and tailfins.
    I'd be interested to see that......

    The 'old' MiG-29K (the one that competed with the Su-27K) didn't have folding nose and tailfins - nor does the 'new' MiG-29K/KUB......



    .... at least AFAIK.

    Please show me.

    And while the Su-33 may have more potential as a platform, the cost of reopening the assembly line along with the upgrades necessary for it to beat the MiG-29K means it's better to just buy the MiGs. That was the Russian Navy's decision in the end.
    The Su-33 has been starved of funds for years.

    The Russian Navy's decision to go with the new MiG-29K/KUB has to do with economies of scale - it is being funded by the Indian Navy.

    It therefore makes economic sense to increase the build numbers to cater for the AVMF requirement.

    Just because it is newer - and incorporates later avionics and systems - it doesn't make it better than an upgraded Su-33.

    If the Su-33 had the same upgrades applied, it would still retain the advantage for the AVMF of needing less airframes to do the same job - as Sukhoi proved when they were competing against the 'old' MiG-29K.

    Meanwhile, back to my original contention - the Su-33 had a smaller deck footprint than the MiG-29K.

    That's all I said.......

    Ken
    Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast.
    Flankers (& others) website at :-
    http://flankers.co.uk/

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyboy77 View Post
    New MiG-35 (967) picture. 4 Kh-29 and 2 R-77.
    so why did they repaint the nose like that? with that tiny area of the radome dark grey instead of the whole radome?

  6. #126
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,481
    That is the entire radome, the Zhuk-AE AESA prototype has a much smaller antenna than the original radome. This is probably due to the current T/R-modules having high power and cooling requirements which the MiG-29 was unable to handle. Keep in mind though that the array occupies the entire diameter of this new radome, unlike the older antenna which had to allow clearances for swivelling. The F-16E/F also has a slightly smaller radome than previous Falcons, although the diffrence is not as big as it is with the MiGs, of course.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Flanker_man View Post
    I'd be interested to see that......

    The 'old' MiG-29K (the one that competed with the Su-27K) didn't have folding nose and tailfins - nor does the 'new' MiG-29K/KUB......



    .... at least AFAIK.

    Please show me.
    All right, I looked around and it does not seem the new MiG-29Ks have folding tails, but the wing folds have been moved further inwards as compared to the first prototype. All in all it occupies less space than the Su-33, which was the reason the Indian Navy chose it and why the Russian Navy will be ordering 24 of them to replace 19 Su-33s.

    http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UmmBXU7oy5E/0.jpg

    As for the nose part, pretty much all fighter aircraft have folding or removable noses. However that's only for maintenance; they're not left with their radar and electronics open during storage.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,144
    Years ago it was stated that the wing folding mechanism of the 9.41 would be moved in by 1 m per wing or in other words reduce the span to about 5.8 m as opposed to the 7.8 m on the 9.31. The was said to be a necessity as the Vikrimatya is smaller than the Kuznetsov and as the aircraft wouldn't fit on the lifts.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,287
    After having looked at various pictures of all MiG-29Ks, I still don't see ant difference. I don't think that wing folds have been moved inwards.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Absurdistan
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    Years ago it was stated that the wing folding mechanism of the 9.41 would be moved in by 1 m per wing or in other words reduce the span to about 5.8 m as opposed to the 7.8 m on the 9.31. The was said to be a necessity as the Vikrimatya is smaller than the Kuznetsov and as the aircraft wouldn't fit on the lifts.

    Do you see any difference?

    <Find a job you like doing, and you'll never have to work a day in your life>

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,144
    @Martinez,
    not in those pictures, but at these older pics it looks a bit like the wing folding mechanism was further out.


  12. #132
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    898
    martinez, are you sure the first one is not a mig-29k test article ?
    HAL - one step ahead of IBM

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,144
    @Boom,
    the question was about the wing folding mechanism of the original MiG-29K (9.31) and the new MiG-29K (9.41). Martinez showing these images had the purpose of comparison and indicated that the position of the wing folding mechanism hasn't changed.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    898
    I quite understand that. if the first pic happens to be a test article (9.41) then the comparison is with itself and not eith original mig-29k(9.31). that's all I'm asking, do we know for sure that the first one in the post above is not one of those ?
    HAL - one step ahead of IBM

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,144
    Yes we in fact know it by the board number 312, it was the second prototype. The aircraft shown in my post is the same aircraft a few years before, but RSK MiG upgraded its original MiG-29K prototypes (No.311 & 312) to support development of the definite MiG-29K (9.41) as is now operated by the IN.

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Trident View Post
    That is the entire radome, the Zhuk-AE AESA prototype has a much smaller antenna than the original radome. This is probably due to the current T/R-modules having high power and cooling requirements which the MiG-29 was unable to handle. Keep in mind though that the array occupies the entire diameter of this new radome, unlike the older antenna which had to allow clearances for swivelling. The F-16E/F also has a slightly smaller radome than previous Falcons, although the diffrence is not as big as it is with the MiGs, of course.
    Trident, it has to do with the size of the Zhuk-AE's back end processors and associated cooling. I read about it in some interview. Once the size of those back end signal processors, etc. are reduced, they will be able to fit a larger sized antenna into the MiG-35's nose. The antenna being offered to the IAF for the Zhuk-AE for the MRCA has 1024 T/R modules AFAIK, which will require that the antenna be pushed back further into the nose, implying that when it is finally ready, the radome will once again look similar to that on MiG-29Ks.

  17. #137
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,481
    Sounds strange. There is no reason to expect the processing backend of the -AE to be any different in volume to previous versions. It should be the cooling and power requirements of the current Russian T/R-module iterations that are driving array size, as their design matures it would then be possible to install the canted 1000+ module array in the original radome as planned.

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    ShangHai
    Posts
    557
    The maiden test flight of the upgraded for India MiG-29UPG took place at Zhukovsky airfield near Moscow on February 4, 2010. RAC "MiG" has successfully performed upgrade of MiG-29 fighter to MiG-29UPG version for the Indian Air Force. The duration of the flight was about 1 hour and has passed without incident. The flight was performed by Chief of Flight Service, senior test pilot of RAC "MiG", Michael Beljaev, a MiG statement said.


    India had signed a $960 million contract with Russia in 2008 to upgrade five squadrons of MiG-29 fighters which are nearly 20 years old. The upgrade involves increasing the service life of approximately 69 MiG-29s, from the present 25 years (2,500 flight hours) to 40 years (3,500 hours). The upgrades are also expected to turn these air-superiority fighters into competent all-weather multi-role jets with beyond-visual-range combat capabilities.

    While the first six MiG-29s will be upgraded in Russia, the rest will be retrofitted by HAL in Nasik, India. The upgrade programme includes replacing existing radars with the advanced multi-functional Zhuk-ME radar and a new weapon control system. The twin-engined MiG-29s will carry sophisticated air-to-air missiles, high-accuracy air-to-ground missiles and 'smart aerial' bombs. The Russian RAC MiG company will also plough back 30 per cent of the contract value into India by setting up consignment depots and service centres, along with simulator centres with training aids.


    The range still is the problem deemed to be worriable for MiG-29 even for its great retrofitted version MiG-35. So, why there is no CFT planed for MiG-29 like recently upgraded proposal of SHE/F?

    The MiG-29 seemd always more efficient than Super Hornet to me. With significantly smaller airframe but roughly same payload available.
    The truth usually between two extremes, the key is when and where.

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by emile View Post
    The MiG-29 seemd always more efficient than Super Hornet to me. With significantly smaller airframe but roughly same payload available.
    MiG-29 at 57 feet is closer to the F-18C size, 56 feet, not the Super Hornet, which is a new plane closer to the F-15 size. I doubt the payload is the same. F-18E, more hard points

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,842
    Can someone pls post the specs sheet of the Mig-35 and SH?
    It would be interesting.
    Last edited by haavarla; 6th February 2011 at 00:06.
    Thanks

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,079
    The range still is the problem deemed to be worriable for MiG-29 even for its great retrofitted version MiG-35. So, why there is no CFT planed for MiG-29 like recently upgraded proposal of SHE/F?
    Range should not be an issue for the new built fulcrum 35/29k. It carries around 5000kg of fuel internally, which gives it a rather excellent fuel fraction - a huge improvement over the original handicap (internal fuel was around 3500kg). Consequently, the bird is slated to have a ferry range of over 2000km on internal fuel - comparable to the Hornet/Shornt.

    Havarla, off the top of my head - here you go:

    Criteria/Shornet/MiG-35
    Empty Wt: 14000kg/10600kg
    Internal Fuel: 6500kg/5000kg+
    External Payload: 8000kg (14 hps)/6500-7000kg (11hps)
    Power: 2X10000kgf GE 414/ 2X 9000 kgf Klimov RD-33MK
    Radar; Apg-79 AESA (200km detection for 3msq)/ Zhuk AESA (200km range projected, currently achieves only 140km)
    IRST: n/a or via EFT/nose mounted and downward facing (360deg)
    EW: AL??+Jammer+ELS/Active Jammer+customRWR, no ELS

    In effect the Shornet is much bigger and better suited to A2G than the Fulcrum. The fulcrum as of today is very very similar to the original hornet in terms of weights/dimensions, only with lots more power and better performance. I'd give the fulcrum the edge when it comes to pure airframe performance over both versions of the 18. Acceleration, turn rates, roll rates etc. However, the Shornet has a clear edge in terms of munitions hauled and electronic wizardry.

    USS.

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,748
    Hard to compare electronics, if MiG-35 can get OLS-K, Zhuk-AE, SOLO and SOAR development done, it becomes tricky to say who has overall avionics advantage. Super Hornet has avionics maturity ofc, MiG-35 has not been inducted.

    Also, SH has 14 pylons? Really?

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    4,563
    Will RuAF ever buy the Mig-35 or promote its export else where if it looses the Indian MMRCA tender ?
    "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,748
    Promote its export? Of course.

    Buy it? There have been repeated mentions time and time again that they intend to buy a batch of 20-30 fighters before 2015, and potentially another similar batch after. Will this happen? Who knows.

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyboy77 View Post
    New MiG-35 (967) picture. 4 Kh-29 and 2 R-77...
    A very sexy fighter. Could any one tell me what capacity of the fuselage drop tank carried by Mig-35 in the photo above is? It seems to be bigger than the normal 1500L one but I am not sure if it is 2000L one.

    The 2000L fuselage drop tank
    Last edited by Grey Area; 6th February 2011 at 08:14.

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    4,563
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    Promote its export? Of course.

    Buy it? There have been repeated mentions time and time again that they intend to buy a batch of 20-30 fighters before 2015, and potentially another similar batch after. Will this happen? Who knows.
    I think by MAKS 11 we should have some idea on how much Mig-29K/35 variant will RuAF/Navy will buy.

    Considering they wont create a 5th gen light LMFS , it would make sense they invest their resource in developing and upgrading Mig-29/35 types for low cost and to add numbers.

    Plus what ever they make from Mig-35/29K exports is just bonus.
    "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    841
    I feel like Russia should join India´s AMCA as a development partner.
    Let India lead the program, if they fund the majority of it, developing whichever parts they wish.
    Russia would develop sub-systems within it´s remit, likely playing off of PAK-FA developments. Developing Russia-specific variant without certain foreign sub-systems that India may select, with full access to the design to allow full Russian production / export at-will (within JV agreement / licencing fees to HAL).

    Anyhow, that´s another thread... :-)
    Last edited by Snow Monkey; 6th February 2011 at 16:37.

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Snow Monkey View Post
    I feel like Russia should join India´s AMCA as a development partner.
    Let India lead the program, if they fund the majority of it, developing whichever parts they wish.
    Russia would develop sub-systems within it´s remit, likely playing off of PAK-FA developments. Developing Russia-specific variant without certain foreign sub-systems that India may select, with full access to the design to allow full Russian production / export at-will (within JV agreement / licencing fees to HAL).

    Anyhow, that´s another thread... :-)
    No offense, but that has zero chance of happening. Take one look at Tejas, Russia has nothing to gain from being a minor partner in an Indian-lead aviation project like AMCA. Just reality.


    What I want to see is the transport projects between the two countries come to fruition.
    Last edited by TR1; 6th February 2011 at 19:43.

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,561
    When it comes to ToT and developing stuff from scratch India looks toward the west. Tejas/Arjun etc are examples.
    Love Planes, Live Planes

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    Hard to compare electronics, if MiG-35 can get OLS-K, Zhuk-AE, SOLO and SOAR development done, it becomes tricky to say who has overall avionics advantage. Super Hornet has avionics maturity ofc, MiG-35 has not been inducted.

    Also, SH has 14 pylons? Really?

    Scratch that - it is 11 hps. Another mistake I made is the empty weight of the fulcrum - that should be 11600kg and not 10600kg. Also the number of hps should be 9 for the 35.

    As far as electronics are concerned, as of now, the edge is clearly in favor of the shornet, the AESA being the biggest concern for the 35. Another advantage the Shornet has is the ELS system, which allows it to detect RF targets passively. I believe the fulcrum could carry a pod to compensate but then that is a waste of 1 pylon. Then there is the towed decoy. IMHO, the Shornet is certainly a more complete package when it comes to such matters.

    The way I see it, if we decide to compare a potentially complete 35 (1064 TRM Zhuk A, internal EW suite etc) with the Shornet, it would only be fair to compare it with a souped up Shornet as well (EPE engines + nose mounted IRST, both of which are on offer for the MRCA race). Here, the airframe performance of the Shornet will certainly catch up to the 35. The TWR provided by 25 tons of thrust would certainly leave the MiG behind. It'll be interesting to see how the jury rigged airframe handles that much power though, esp. the outward canted pylons!

    USS.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES