The PAK-FA Saga Episode IV

[Hyperwarp]

There'll be NO 5G MiG, I guarantee it- simply no money.

It was Fyodorov's pet project and he's still peeved at losing the tender. Once MiG is swallowed-up by UAC/OAK later this year, you'll never hear of it again (unless the Chinese do another 'Lavi').
It underlines opinion that PAK-FA is a heavyweight fighter of F-22 class, though.

Having said that, MiG may still win the UCAV tender.

Sheeesh....talk about ruining my day.....

Anyway, since we are expecting the 1st flight of the PAK-FA somewhere in 2009, will it be unveiled to the public just before or after its initial flights? Generally, how do the Russians handle unveiling high-priority projects?

[GarryB]

Sorry to be a party pooper again - but the Berkut has no bomb bay - just fairing demonstrators and an internal launch test mechanism.

The fact that they didn't bother actually fitting it with a weapons bay simply means they were spending money on developing it as a technology demostrator and there is no point testing a real weapons bay on a demonstrator that might be completely different to the final design.

It was Fyodorov's pet project and he's still peeved at losing the tender. Once MiG is swallowed-up by UAC/OAK later this year, you'll never hear of it again (unless the Chinese do another 'Lavi').
It underlines opinion that PAK-FA is a heavyweight fighter of F-22 class, though.

Permit me to disagree. When ever a big company swallows a little company they look at all the asset and bits and work out what they want to keep and what they think will end up as a dead end. As any aircraft company will tell you right now, there is no point developing 4th gen fighters from scratch now... especially if you just aquired a group of companies that have invested not a huge amount of money but certainly a huge amount of time and brains in developing 5th generation fighter aircraft.
This light 5th gen fighter, if it can be made in -5th gen fighter, where performance is above upgraded 4th gen designs, but not quite as wonderful as real 5th gen fighters, and also not cost too much to buy and operate might have a bright future. Everyone might want the shiny new mach 2 fighter, but not really need a bright shiny new Mach 2 fighter.
A cheaper simpler option that can have different radars and weapons fitted makes a good deal of sense...

BTW the clip Otakau provided a link to... ie

http://www.ato.ru/rus/cis/archive/20-2008/def/def3/

It clearly shows someone at UAC describing the MIG 5th gen light plane... which shows they have followed its development to me... and the last comment:

Fedorov declined to say if the Russian air force is providing financing for the project, saying only that "the Air Force has interest in the light advanced fighter."

In other words that explains the Russian government offering the Algerians the Mig-35 instead of more Su-30s... it is clear they want to give work to the MIG company... to keep it funded... this deal is made through the Russian government so they control who gets the work and where the funds go...

Sounds to me like the Mig company and any company that it becomes part of might be selling Mig-35s to the Algerian AF, probably WILL be selling Mig-35s to the Russian AF and will likely be making a light 5th gen fighter, either with a single engine or two seriously upgraded smaller engines... (I remember an engine described as the RD-45 in the 10-12 ton thrust class for next generation (at the time) Mig-35s... perhaps they are going to use similar engines in the new 5th gen fighter).

[UAZ]

There'll be NO 5G MiG, I guarantee it- simply no money.

It was Fyodorov's pet project and he's still peeved at losing the tender. Once MiG is swallowed-up by UAC/OAK later this year, you'll never hear of it again (unless the Chinese do another 'Lavi').
It underlines opinion that PAK-FA is a heavyweight fighter of F-22 class, though.

Having said that, MiG may still win the UCAV tender.

Not many countries can afford PAK-FA (the export version). A smaller, lighter and cheaper 5th gen aircraft will have huge opportunities on the world-wide market. Nowadays the Russian military-industrial complex is very much export minded.

What would Rosoboronoexport offer to its clients during the 2020's and 30's? Su-35 (still unafordable to many) and Mig-35 (not much cheaper either) are only 4.5 generation aircraft. There is a huge gap between the PAK-FA and a souped-up version of the Yak-130.

[LoofahBoy]

Not many countries can afford PAK-FA (the export version). A smaller, lighter and cheaper 5th gen aircraft will have huge opportunities on the world-wide market. Nowadays the Russian military-industrial complex is very much export minded.

But by the time this new jet becomes ready for export (2020s, maybe?), wouldn't the F-35 have had a ten-year jump and already secured a lot of potential orders?

[broncho]

There are many countires which won't buy american plane. Venezuela, Iran, syria, libya, cuba maybe even brazil. So there is ample sale potential for a single engined Mig 5th gen aircraft.

[GarryB]

But by the time this new jet becomes ready for export (2020s, maybe?), wouldn't the F-35 have had a ten-year jump and already secured a lot of potential orders?

As Broncho points out there are lots of countries that just don't have the option of buying American. There are plenty of others that actually might need to use their aircraft for real and therefore don't want the US congress discussing whether they can use a fighter they paid for in combat or not.

[SOC]

OK, I'll bite. Prove to all of us that a foreign F-35 won't be able to be used in combat by the purchaser. And that the Congress has operational control over them.

[Victor]

RAC-MiG's new General Director Anatoly Belov, interviewed by Kommersant

Q. Could the [Russian] Air Force declare a tender for the development of light and medium fighters of the fifth generation soon?

Belov: I assume the one heavy fighter (now being developed by Sukhoi,) will not fulfill all the tasks now before the Air Force [the PAK-FA, which India is to be a partner on]. A plane of a lighter class is objectively necessary, so we continue to work in that area.

[flex297]

OK, I'll bite. Prove to all of us that a foreign F-35 won't be able to be used in combat by the purchaser. And that the Congress has operational control over them.

I think he probably means this or similar case: From Defense Industry Daily

In the course of development, 2 key issues came up with respect to the F-16 Block 60. One was the familiar issue of source code control for key avionics and electronic warfare systems. The other was weapons carriage.

As a rule, the software source codes that program the electronic-warfare, radar, and data buses on US fighters are too sensitive for export. Instead, the USA sent the UAE “object codes” (similar to APIs), which allow them to add to the F-16’s threat library on their own.

The other issue concerned the Black Shaheen derivative of MBDA’s Storm Shadow stealth cruise missile. The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) defines 300 km as the current limit for cruise missiles, and the terms of the sale allow the United States to regulate which weapons the F-16s can carry. Since the Black Shahine was deemed to have a range of over 300km, the US State Department refused to let Lockheed Martin change the data bus to permit the F-16E/Fs to carry the missile. It is believed that the Mirage 2000-9 upgrades the UAE has purchased from France will address this issue, giving the UAE a platform capable of handling their new acquisition.

[GarryB]

OK, I'll bite. Prove to all of us that a foreign F-35 won't be able to be used in combat by the purchaser. And that the Congress has operational control over them.

So Yemen decides to be helpful in the war on terror and stumps up enough for 5 F-35s in 2022. Will Congress let them continue to buy spares and support if they decide to attack Pakistan? Or Saudi Arabia?

There is a food chain. The US promised to protect central and south american countries from outside aggression at one time in the past. When Argentina and Britain had a small disagreement in the early 80s the US had to choose and it seems it did not choose to support Argentina. It follows that if your war is with somone further up the food chain than you... dont' expect the US cavalry to come save the day... in fact expect the software in all your fancy stuff to fail at the worst time.

[GarryB]

Besides SOC, you know as well as I do that it just takes one US congressman with a chip on their shoulder to kill any supply/spare part order/ or sale.

[Victor]

Absolutely right GB about the food chain.

If Georgia decides to invade the break away Georgian region of Abkhazia tomorrow, will Russia provide technical support for the legacy Soviet equipment in the Georgian ORBAT?

Is it in Russia's self interest to help the Georgians? Was it in US's self interest to help the Brits or the Argentinians? All actions flows from the self interest rule.

Thou shalt not help anyone that is interfering with or otherwise jeopardizing your own self interest.

[abrahavt]

Precisely the reason countries like India, Brazil and South Africa have shied away from buying US goodies despite being democracies and having a lot in common with the US. No country wants to be held hostage to another countries whims and fancies.

[SOC]

So Yemen decides to be helpful in the war on terror and stumps up enough for 5 F-35s in 2022. Will Congress let them continue to buy spares and support if they decide to attack Pakistan? Or Saudi Arabia?

There is a food chain. The US promised to protect central and south american countries from outside aggression at one time in the past. When Argentina and Britain had a small disagreement in the early 80s the US had to choose and it seems it did not choose to support Argentina. It follows that if your war is with somone further up the food chain than you... dont' expect the US cavalry to come save the day... in fact expect the software in all your fancy stuff to fail at the worst time.

There is a logistics chain, yes, and a "food chain" (pretty accurate analogy, actually, good thinking) like you described WRT the Falklands. But there isn't a magic "turn off" switch that Congress or the DoD can activate via satellite to make the aircraft unusable. That's the part people keep talking about, and yet they have never offered a single shred of evidence to support the idea...

I think he probably means this or similar case:

OK, the Black Shaheen example is a potential misuse of the MTCR, I'll admit that wholeheartedly. If the UAE already had the weapon in its possession, then any future deals would have to take that into account. I.E., the MTCR wouldn't apply anymore, as they already had a 300km+ weapon system.

Belov: I assume the one heavy fighter (now being developed by Sukhoi,) will not fulfill all the tasks now before the Air Force

His opinion might matter if he wasn't the HEAD of RAC-MiG! With the apparent abandonment of the MiG-29SMT upgrades and the focus on upgrading Su-27s and buying Su-34s and Su-35s the RusAF has clearly chosen to focus on long-range, heavy fighters. With a mix of 400 Su-35s and PAK-FAs they have no real need for a lighter fighter (yeah I made the number up, but you get the point). I'd like to know just what role the PAK-FA isn't supposed to be able to perform that RAC-MiG feels justifies the production and procurement of a whole new aircraft? Export is one thing, but he's talking about domestic use here, which is a whole different issue.

[SOC]

Precisely the reason countries like India, Brazil and South Africa have shied away from buying US goodies despite being democracies and having a lot in common with the US. No country wants to be held hostage to another countries whims and fancies.

The problem isn't the US itself, but the fact that our entire political landscape can change every two years when House and Senate seats are up for election. India is a great trading partner, for example, but what if the Democrats propose a pro-Pakistan agenda and take control in the next election? Might hurt the defense relationship. I don't blame anyone for not buying American if they don't want to, they have to do what's in their best interests to mantain their defensive capabilities.

[Victor]

His opinion might matter if he wasn't the HEAD of RAC-MiG! With the apparent abandonment of the MiG-29SMT upgrades and the focus on upgrading Su-27s and buying Su-34s and Su-35s the RusAF has clearly chosen to focus on long-range, heavy fighters. With a mix of 400 Su-35s and PAK-FAs they have no real need for a lighter fighter (yeah I made the number up, but you get the point). I'd like to know just what role the PAK-FA isn't supposed to be able to perform that RAC-MiG feels justifies the production and procurement of a whole new aircraft? Export is one thing, but he's talking about domestic use here, which is a whole different issue.

I would contend that Russia will not go to an all heavy fighter force. If it does, a few years later, it will go to OAK and request a lighter platform, simply because of money. A force as large as the VVS will want two platforms, especially when the second platform's technology can be leveraged from the first platform.

I would also contend that the Russians haven't bought any new MiGs primarily because the new MiGs aren't worth buying. From the initial Mig-29K to the Mig-35, they've all been mostly promises and dead ends. The Russian air force is too smart to buy any of the endless cavalcade of warmed over Mig-29 variants, even if other air forces aren't. Algeria has wizened up though.

[SOC]

But that second platform should be the Su-35. Give them 10 years, and you'll see Su-27SMs and Su-35s. 5-10 more years, and the Su-27SMs will give way to PAK-FAs. It's the PAK-FA which should benefit from engines and systems trialled and potentially inducted on the Su-35, keeping ITS cost down some. Russia has a lot of territory to cover. A large fighter makes sense. A shorter-legged fighter really doesn't anymore. It did when they put MiG-29s all over the WarPac nations to counter NATO, but now it doesn't.

[broncho]

Depends what you mean by short legged. The Mig-29k and the newer Mig-35 versions have a range exceeding 2000km on internal fuel. If the light fighter can meet the specs then being cheaper and easier to maintain it would make a lot of sense to russians. US is not a small country by any means yet they have no problem buying F-35's?

[Victor]

But that second platform should be the Su-35.

I will have to disagree. We'll see where things go I suppose. I know that MiG will try to push the light fighter concept though, hard.

[SOC]

Depends what you mean by short legged. The Mig-29k and the newer Mig-35 versions have a range exceeding 2000km on internal fuel. If the light fighter can meet the specs then being cheaper and easier to maintain it would make a lot of sense to russians. US is not a small country by any means yet they have no problem buying F-35's?

The US takes fighter jets and parks them next to places it likes to bomb. Russia doesn't do too much of that. At any rate, Russia initially wanted a JSF-sized aircraft, but changed their minds and went for an F-22 sized aircraft for PAK-FA. Clearly they already thought about the smaller fighter option. There is still no real reason to pour money into developing another aircraft and procuring it when the Su-35 and PAK-FA will be in the inventory.

[star49]

Su-27SM has 4000km range. Su-35 with highpowered engines is 3600KM with 4 missiles. with airrefuelling range of 6500KM. Now there is 2500L/3000L external tanks for Sukhois. This shows how much they are emphasis on range.
and there is no mention of any new fighter in budget untill 2015. The performance gap between Sukhoi and MIG is increasing day by day. It will take massive financing for MIG to reach Sukhoi quality and experiance now.
Algerian already found of Su-30MKA and i doubt they will go with MIG-35 two or 3 years down the line when u have superior IRKUT built product in hand. (factory is Airbus parts already certified and preparing for MS-21 with black wing).
The only reason this MIG future is mentioned becuase there is that IAF tender which will drag this issue in media.

[Otaku]

I would also contend that the Russians haven't bought any new MiGs primarily because the new MiGs aren't worth buying. From the initial Mig-29K to the Mig-35, they've all been mostly promises and dead ends. The Russian air force is too smart to buy any of the endless cavalcade of warmed over Mig-29 variants, even if other air forces aren't. Algeria has wizened up though.

WOWSERS!! am I in agreement with Victor?- I would contend sort of.
Even if the RuAF put out a tender for a light-fighter in a decade's time MiG would be utterly foolish to put forward the LMFS- which is essentially a single-engined 1.44 rehash. It would have to be a completely brand-new, clean-sheet design (maybe 6th Gen.?), of which MiG would be project leader under OAK (if it wins), which would guarantee the Kremlin's darling Sukhoi a significant workshare.
Incidently, Sukhoi is developing the all composite wing for MS-21.

I see no problem with an all heavyweight RuAF. The 'point-defence' ethos of MiG-29 class is largely redundant.

[Wanderlei]

It will fly very soon. As a matter of fact, it is most likely just about ready to fly NOW. ( although not complete to fully perform or fight)

There is absolutely NO reason (quite on contrary) for Russia to stall this project these days. Think about it. It has ALL the financial backing at this point it needs!

Also, i think that comparing the speed of Flanker series evolving, and now Su-35 so slowly entering service to this project is wrong, and has nothing to do with PAK-FA's design and it's first flight.

I am talking about first few models, and not full production here - of course.

At this point to Russia it is just important to release this new fighter as complete as possible to stand the much ahead F-22s fame and might, and even have reasonable edge (at least commercially)! It is crucial to be as serious and unique a competitor as Su-30/35 are to latest F-15s and Super hornets - without any doubts.

[star49]

WOWSERS!! am I in agreement with Victor?- I would contend sort of.
Even if the RuAF put out a tender for a light-fighter in a decade's time MiG would be utterly foolish to put forward the LMFS- which is essentially a single-engined 1.44 rehash. It would have to be a completely brand-new, clean-sheet design (maybe 6th Gen.?), of which MiG would be project leader under OAK (if it wins), which would guarantee the Kremlin's darling Sukhoi a significant workshare.
Incidently, Sukhoi is developing the all composite wing for MS-21.

I see no problem with an all heavyweight RuAF. The 'point-defence' ethos of MiG-29 class is largely redundant.

Ruaf is upgrading MIG-31 and putting the longest range missile with uprated engine. so MIG-29 is not the only product for MIG apart from UCAV/UAV coming.
And range seems very important for Sukhoi/Ruaf along with biggest radars/sensors. they are putting 10hrs airborne time for Su-34. Almost 10,000km range with refuelling and ET.
The whole strategy around Su-27SM/MIG-31BM/SU-27BM/Su-34/PAK-FA is too have longest legs with biggest radar/missiles. Put ultralong range BVR and ASM into thsoe platforms. u immensly increase the radius of action both in Strikerole and air to air protection to SSN/SSBN fleet along with bombers.
U can practically Challenge US/Japanes/Chinese navies in open seas thousands of kms away from shore. and with new railway infrastructure coming up in russia from east to west. the importance of Oceans will decrease with time. I dont see anyrole for smaller fighters in future.

[1MAN]

WOWSERS!! am I in agreement with Victor?- I would contend sort of.
Even if the RuAF put out a tender for a light-fighter in a decade's time MiG would be utterly foolish to put forward the LMFS- which is essentially a single-engined 1.44 rehash. It would have to be a completely brand-new, clean-sheet design (maybe 6th Gen.?), of which MiG would be project leader under OAK (if it wins), which would guarantee the Kremlin's darling Sukhoi a significant workshare.
Incidently, Sukhoi is developing the all composite wing for MS-21.

I see no problem with an all heavyweight RuAF. The 'point-defence' ethos of MiG-29 class is largely redundant.

I don't understand, Rus built the MiG-29KUB from scratch (Brand New) and added Stealth Couting on it as well, so what's so hard for MiG to build 500

[GarryB]

If Georgia decides to invade the break away Georgian region of Abkhazia tomorrow, will Russia provide technical support for the legacy Soviet equipment in the Georgian ORBAT?

As peacekeeper in the region I would expect them to keep the peace with the soldiers they have there and the resources they have available to them.

Abkhazia is high on the food chain for Russia because 98% of Abkhazians have Russian citizenship. And you can perhaps work out with South Ossetia... with North Ossetia being in the Russian federation that their might be ties there too.

Just look at what the US did to Grenada when a few hundred US students were threatened by the local government.

Imagine the same situation except 98% of the population was American, the US already had 3,000 peacekeepers in the country and Cuba was claiming Grenada was a province of Cuba... Not rocket science really.

Is it in Russia's self interest to help the Georgians?

Absolutely not. Georgia is not Russias friend. In fact currently they are the opposite of that.

Was it in US's self interest to help the Brits or the Argentinians? All actions flows from the self interest rule.

Well the US had an agreement to support central and south american countries from external threats. Why else do you think they would put up with the crap the US sold them... like F-5s and Skyhawks at a time when much better aircraft were available?
The US also had an agreement with the UK over defence but that was NATO and did not include the US helping the UK with its former colonies.

On paper the US should have been helping the Argentines, but Ronny did the opposite and helped the Brits by allowing them to use new model Sidewinders that allowed all aspect engagements amongst other things that were probably not made public.

But there isn't a magic "turn off" switch that Congress or the DoD can activate via satellite to make the aircraft unusable. That's the part people keep talking about, and yet they have never offered a single shred of evidence to support the idea...

I am not actually talking about that but how hard do you think it would be to hide a couple of lines of code so that when it recieves a signal... even via GPS or whatever that when the fire control system locks onto a certain type of aircraft that a minor fault will develop and they can't launch, or the missile appears to get a lock but when it is fired it goes dead and hits nothing.

The US refuses to provide open source code to its customers...

I was talking about... congress not allowing spares support to continue and if they persist that trade sanctions be imposed... ala Venezuala. And Venezuala didn't even invade anyone. All they did was have their leader get hot under the collar after the CIA tried to throw him out of power. After that he said a lot of not very nice things about his biggest customer for oil. The result is that he has to buy all new planes because the ones he has are no longer supported.

If the UAE already had the weapon in its possession, then any future deals would have to take that into account. I.E., the MTCR wouldn't apply anymore, as they already had a 300km+ weapon system.

India has plenty of weapons that have a range greater than 300km. Why did they bother with BrahMos?

If all a country has to do is build a simple subsonic basic cruise missile that flys 301km and can be launched from an aircraft and then they can be sold anything you like (ie 5,000km range Kh-101s) then MTCR is a joke.

You could sell them a missile with a range of 299km and they could take the lead ballast out of it and/or replace it with more fuel. Once that is in service you can sell them anything.

With a mix of 400 Su-35s and PAK-FAs they have no real need for a lighter fighter (yeah I made the number up, but you get the point). I'd like to know just what role the PAK-FA isn't supposed to be able to perform that RAC-MiG feels justifies the production and procurement of a whole new aircraft? Export is one thing, but he's talking about domestic use here, which is a whole different issue.

The problem is coverage. They might be able to afford 400 PAKs and Su-35s but they might need 800 fighter bombers just to cover the territory with assets that can be used in various places. If those extra 400 planes were half the price of the PAKs and Su-35s then it makes a huge saving. The difference in performance between the Su-35 and Mig-35 is not insurmountable, and the Mig seems better prepared for air to ground use with its 360 degree EO system.
The frontal aviation lost a lot of fighter bombers when it removed its single engine fighters from operational service. Buying a few Mig-35s and upgrading Mig-29s would fill that gap better than big very expensive Su-35s and PAKs.

I don't blame anyone for not buying American if they don't want to, they have to do what's in their best interests to mantain their defensive capabilities.

I hope you dont see this as anti american. For some countries these strings don't matter because either america will support them no matter what, or they will support america no matter what. For the rest of the world however... who wants to give up their military to a foreign power?

I would also contend that the Russians haven't bought any new MiGs primarily because the new MiGs aren't worth buying. From the initial Mig-29K to the Mig-35, they've all been mostly promises and dead ends. The Russian air force is too smart to buy any of the endless cavalcade of warmed over Mig-29 variants, even if other air forces aren't. Algeria has wizened up though.

They haven't bought any new fighters and have only upgraded about 36 Su-27s. The reality is that they have hundreds of Su-27s and Mig-29s in storage and really don't need any new aircraft. The Su-27BM upgrade applied to the Su-27s they have in storage makes sense. The SMT upgrade of existing Mig-29s also makes sense... simply because for less than the price of a LIFT like a Yak-130 they can get a multirole combat aircraft that is much more effective than the planes they have in service now and are much cheaper than the slightly superior aircraft that are now ready (like the Mig-35).

Russia has a lot of territory to cover. A large fighter makes sense. A shorter-legged fighter really doesn't anymore. It did when they put MiG-29s all over the WarPac nations to counter NATO, but now it doesn't.

Indeed it does have a lot of territory to cover, but you can't really cover it all with a few large long range aircraft. In siberia where airfields are few and far between then the Su-35 makes sense. It can carry weapons externally and not worry about external fuel tanks let alone inflight refuelling. In European Russia however there are plenty of airbases and also a lot more targets to PROTECT. Having long range is a disadvantage because it makes more sense to use aircraft closer to targets to defend that target.

If you have long range fighters you end up with a few fighters that are a long way away. A minor incursion can be dealt with easily but an invasion would overwhelm much more quickly.

But that second platform should be the Su-35.

Eventally that light fighter is going to need to be stealthy. The Su-35 is the interim fighter. Over the next two decades or so it will help keep numbers up, but the PAK-FA will not likely enter service properly till about 2020 in my opinion in numbers to be of use. Till then they will need upgraded Mig-31s and Mig-29s and Su-27s. When the PAK-FA starts entering service those countries that can't afford or don't need stealth can buy the Mig-29s and Su-27s that have been upgraded... remember the RuAF have plenty of these aircraft in storage (ie hundreds).

There is still no real reason to pour money into developing another aircraft and procuring it when the Su-35 and PAK-FA will be in the inventory.

Much of the money seems to be from MIG. Rosborn... export company for Russia seems determined for Algeria to take a mig of some sort...
Even if they don't the new merger will cut more fat and increase funds and political power... they are hardly going to completely drop something like a lightweight 5th gen fighter design.

U can practically Challenge US/Japanes/Chinese navies in open seas thousands of kms away from shore. and with new railway infrastructure coming up in russia from east to west. the importance of Oceans will decrease with time. I dont see anyrole for smaller fighters in future.

Even if the role is perimeter defence you need numbers as well as range.
If range was really all important then why bother with the Su-34?

With inflight refuelling and conventional weapons the Tu-160 has much longer range than the Su-34 could ever have. It can carry 5 times the payload maybe three times further... the problem is lack of numbers. The Russian AF wants about 300 Su-34s. 300 long range strike aircraft... and 400 fighters?

Range is very useful for many missions but numbers are important too. The US can only afford 189 F-22s, and 20 B-2s. The purpose of the F-35 is that they will be built in the thousands...

Anybody thinks the PAK-FA will be built in the thousands here?

[star49]

Even if the role is perimeter defence you need numbers as well as range.
If range was really all important then why bother with the Su-34?

Su-34 can reach most of targets in EU/Middleast/Asia and can be serviced from greater number of air bases and can do fighter role to certain extent.

With inflight refuelling and conventional weapons the Tu-160 has much longer range than the Su-34 could ever have. It can carry 5 times the payload maybe three times further... the problem is lack of numbers. The Russian AF wants about 300 Su-34s. 300 long range strike aircraft... and 400 fighters?

They are also buying 1 blackjack per year and and have new Strategic Stealth bomber part of there budget plan. So long range strike is far more important than short leg fighters.

Range is very useful for many missions but numbers are important too. The US can only afford 189 F-22s, and 20 B-2s. The purpose of the F-35 is that they will be built in the thousands...

Anybody thinks the PAK-FA will be built in the thousands here?

Su-34 not only has greater range but due larger fuel capacity it can be refuelled further away from the battlefied.(larger internal fuel gives even more range due to refuelling). And than there is that huge radar in the nose along with huge spine & bigger tail sting in the back. And they are going to use this aircraft for EW/antisubmarine warfare and is well protected and perfected for low altitude flying and bombing just like Su-25 with much higher speed and load. And it has alot in common interms of engines with rest to Flanker fleet and production capacity will rise to much higher number with time. New MIG-35 simply cannot carry the size of weopon and will not be much cheaper than $50M and in case of single engine 5th generation the cost will be much closer to twin engine long range fighter. Just look at F-22/JSF cost. pretty close.
I tend to think they will buy 20 to 30 PAK-FA per year for long time like so 400 to 800 number is reasonable along with 200 Su-34.

[UAZ]

I tend to think they will buy 20 to 30 PAK-FA per year for long time like so 400 to 800 number is reasonable along with 200 Su-34.

I think you are too optimistic. PAK-FA is expensive and production will probably not exceed 10 per year (unless a new cold war heats up). Total procurement will probably be no more than 200 units. There will also probably get about 200 Su-34s for the strike role as well (not enough to replace the Su-24s).

They will have to fill the rest of their squadrons with 4.5 gen fighters and fighter-bombers: SU-35 and Mig-35. The Sukhois mainly for air defense and the Migs mainly for ground attack. The Mig will somehow have to fill in the shoes of the Su-24 ( as there will not be enough Su-34s) and Su-25 on certain missions (PGM delivery), while a single seat ground attack version of the Yak-130 will have to do the low level close support.

There are many places where the airforce would prefer to station smaller and cheaper (more expandable) Migs rather than Su-35s : such as bases near borders and bases abroad (the Russian Mig-29s based in Armenia and the Su-25s in Kirkhizistan come to mind).

The Mig-35 is a extrmely versatile platform. Over 2000km range on internal fuel only, large number of hardpoints for all kinds of air-air and air-surface weaponry, very well equipped (AESA radar, optronics etc.) and fast (Mach2). The Su-35 is more capable in almost every field, indeed. But the Su-35 carries with it a higher price tag plus higher operating costs (fuel etc.).

I think the Mig-35 has a future in the RusAF. I would like to see the actual final version of the real plane (so far we have seen a small scale model and a prototype that is not the final product).

[GarryB]

Su-34 can reach most of targets in EU/Middleast/Asia and can be serviced from greater number of air bases and can do fighter role to certain extent.

But its range includes inflight refuelling and Russia does not have an infinite supply of tankers... in fact they have a rather limited supply.

If range was that important then get rid of the Su-34 and use Backfires... with inflight refuelling capability restored one Backfire can carry more than three times the weapon load of a single Su-34 on an unrefuelled radius of 2,000km. That means if you add inflight refuelling its range explodes because at max payload its range is mostly reduced because fuel is offloaded to allow the extra weapons weight. As soon as it is airborne it can add more fuel and improve its range considerably.

They are also buying 1 blackjack per year and and have new Strategic Stealth bomber part of there budget plan. So long range strike is far more important than short leg fighters.

The original Mig-29 was a short range fighter. The current models are more like medium range fighters. The difference in range isn't that large from the Su-27. Most of the Su-27s flights are with half their fuel tanks empty.

Su-34 not only has greater range but due larger fuel capacity it can be refuelled further away from the battlefied.(larger internal fuel gives even more range due to refuelling).

So why bother with Su-35s and Su-34s?

The reality is that the Su-34s are taking over from the Su-24s and as such their air to air training will hardly be extensive. It might have impressive capabilities in air to air but it will only use these capabilities in self defence.

And they are going to use this aircraft for EW/antisubmarine warfare and is well protected and perfected for low altitude flying and bombing just like Su-25 with much higher speed and load.

What makes the Su-25 and the A-10 for that matter good for close support is because they are not fast.

If an Su-25 can't carry a heavy enough weapon for CAS then you really need to ask is it really CAS or is it strike...

And it has alot in common interms of engines with rest to Flanker fleet and production capacity will rise to much higher number with time.

Yeah but lets not over estimate the savings. I mean why would the Russian Army need a light helo to replace the Mi-2 when they could use the Mi-8 instead... it is already inservice. Well some of the roles a light helo performs are hard to perform in a bigger helo. For example the Russian Army just ordered 10 Mi-34s because the other light helos in service can't be looped and rolled and manouvered like the new Mi-28N can, so they wanted a trainer helo that would allow the students to practise such things before they got into the Havoc. They are also introducing the ANSAT helo into service to replace the Mi-2 which of course was made in a NATO country now. The point is that for many roles a lighter helo makes more sense than using a heavy large helo for the job.

You talk about the cost of Su-35s... well the cost of upgrading Mig-29s to Mig-29SMTs is about 6 million per aircraft... that is less than some tanks and also cheaper than many attack helos and even some LIFTs yet offers rather better performance in every respect.

New MIG-35 simply cannot carry the size of weopon and will not be much cheaper than $50M

They have hundreds of stored Su-27s and Mig-29s, I doubt they will be buying very many new aircraft at all except the PAK-FA.

The Mig-35 can carry 6.5 tons of weapons... which is probably 4.5 tons more than it will normally carry for most of its life.

and in case of single engine 5th generation the cost will be much closer to twin engine long range fighter. Just look at F-22/JSF cost. pretty close.

The JSF is an international project to create a single engine 5th gen fighter to replace a lot of different fighter and light strike and VSTOL fighters. It was never designed to be the cheaper compliment to the F-22, but was supposed to be cheap because of the numbers to be produced. The MIG design however has been designed from the outset to offer 5th gen fighter performance at reduced prices. Everything the F-16 should have been but ended up not being because they had to put all the bells and whistles on it.

I tend to think they will buy 20 to 30 PAK-FA per year for long time like so 400 to 800 number is reasonable along with 200 Su-34.

How much money do you think the RuAF will be getting?
Odds are they can either buy 400 PAK-FAs or they can have an airforce that is properly funded. I would expect from 2018 they might get 4-5 a year initially and by 2025 they might get 20-30 per year to replace the older legacy fighters still in service.

I would expect most of the PAK-FAs and Su-35s to go to the far east initially where their range is useful because of the distance between bases.

In european Russia I would expect the Mig-29 to be the most widely deployed fighter, but with the SMT upgrade they can perform medium level strike missions with TV, laser, and IR guided and of course satellite guided bombs and missiles.

The main reason the Mig-29SMT and Su-27SM upgrades are not being introduced more urgently is because the precision guided munitions they use are still not in widespread service in the RuAF.

... a lot of money needs to be spent yet, but unless the threat levels change dramatically (ie McCain for two terms and then something worse perhaps) I can't see the urgency in getting rid of perfectly good aircraft like the Mig-29 and Mig-31 and Su-27s.

[star49]

I think you are too optimistic. PAK-FA is expensive and production will probably not exceed 10 per year (unless a new cold war heats up). Total procurement will probably be no more than 200 units. There will also probably get about 200 Su-34s for the strike role as well (not enough to replace the Su-24s).

I put news from Sukhoi on Old PAK-FA thread that PAK-FA will only be economical to produce when alteast one regiment of 24 aircraft per year is produced and they agree with it. 200 Su-34 are certainly much more capable than 600 Su-24. Just look at Speed, range, future missiles and sensors reach.

They will have to fill the rest of their squadrons with 4.5 gen fighters and fighter-bombers: SU-35 and Mig-35. The Sukhois mainly for air defense and the Migs mainly for ground attack. The Mig will somehow have to fill in the shoes of the Su-24 ( as there will not be enough Su-34s) and Su-25 on certain missions (PGM delivery), while a single seat ground attack version of the Yak-130 will have to do the low level close support.

There are many places where the airforce would prefer to station smaller and cheaper (more expandable) Migs rather than Su-35s : such as bases near borders and bases abroad (the Russian Mig-29s based in Armenia and the Su-25s in Kirkhizistan come to mind).

The Mig-35 is a extrmely versatile platform. Over 2000km range on internal fuel only, large number of hardpoints for all kinds of air-air and air-surface weaponry, very well equipped (AESA radar, optronics etc.) and fast (Mach2). The Su-35 is more capable in almost every field, indeed. But the Su-35 carries with it a higher price tag plus higher operating costs (fuel etc.).

I think the Mig-35 has a future in the RusAF. I would like to see the actual final version of the real plane (so far we have seen a small scale model and a prototype that is not the final product).

I dont think so. there is no large scale budget and procurement programe for MIG-29. Su-27SM continue and 3 prototypes of Su-35 will fly this year. (how many prototypes of new MIG-35 will fly this year?). and Su-35 is not much worse in fuel economyl as it needs 11,500kg fuel to produce 3600KM range with 4 missiles. while MIG-29 needs 5500kg of fuel for 2000KM range. and agianst Stealth targets u need aircraft with very powerful sensors with lot of fuel economy and speed. (Su-35 Mach 2.25 at 36000feet).

[quote]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...in-sukhoi.html
OAK puts faith in Sukhoi
Sukhoi Supreme
In refining its strategy for 2008-15, OAK has given Sukhoi complete responsibility for two key fighter programmes, the Su-27SM2 and its export version Su-35, and the Su-34. Along with Superjet, these programmes enjoy large research and development and export sales funding from the Russian defence ministry and Kremlin-controlled banks including VTB, VEB and, for Superjet, the French and Italian COFACE and SACE export support agencies. These arrangements are designed to protect OAK from creditors should the Su-35 or Superjet projects fail, by making Sukhoi and SCAC liable.