Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RuAF News and development Thread part 15

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • JSR
    JSR
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Aug 2011
    • 4982

    The point is MIG-29 next iteration MIG-35 has more upside export potential than F-15 or Rafale. If the Egypt deal succeed. they will likely order more as there F-16 cant be upgraded to same capability standard and Rafale too expensive. There will be plenty of other countries that will line up.

    Comment

    • Arihant
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Apr 2017
      • 440

      @ JSR

      The point I was making that India can barely afford 3 M2K upgrade per year and M2K are not even sent for active exercises anywhere
      The issue of the very small no of Mirage 2000 being upgraded annually has nothing to do with paucity of funds. It is due to shortage of skilled manpower with HAL. HAL Blore unit has its hands full of projects. The Blore unit has many divisions. The Western aircraft manufacturing,final assembly and overhaul portion of HAL is in Bangalore. The overhaul division is simultaneously working on the Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 and Jag DARIN-3 upgrades. hence the small no of upgraded Mirages each year.

      Dassault wanted to have a higher no of Indian Mirages upgraded at its facilities in France but we insisted that the upgrade for 48 of the 51 acs being upgraded be done in country.

      And yes,our Mirages dont participate in any exercise with other nations. But our MiG-29B do. They practise on a regular basis with RSAF F-16D Block 52 at KKD as do the Bisons and MiG-27ML.
      Last edited by Arihant; 24th August 2017, 17:53.

      Comment

      • Arihant
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Apr 2017
        • 440

        Pics of Pantsir SM from Army-2017.

        Will someone pls post the specifications of this new missile of SM? I have once read that the new missile will be able to intercept ballistic targets.
        does this missile have a RF seeker or it too is command RF guided like its predecessors.

        Can someone translate the caption in the pic with the missile in the canister?
        The canister can hold four of the new missiles. On which platform is this tube going to be installed ? The tube appears to have a bigger diameter than the usual 9M331 missile canisters.

        One thing though, the Pantsir-SM looks even more menacing on the new Typhoon chassis.
        Attached Files

        Comment

        • haavarla
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Dec 2008
          • 6715

          I would say the opposite: because USSR had limited resources compared to NATO, the same engineering study way applyed both to a "light" fighter and to the frontline interceptor one.

          Still, nothing but the Will and need of optimization dictated a very narrow set of performance that proved themselves toublesome on the years following the end of Warsaw Pact.

          In the end, it has been a project that grew old early.
          That is one sorry opinion..
          So the NATO study was just so much STRONKER with regards to F-16's..

          Wtf does NATO have to do with F-16 in the first place!? It was a US design last time i checked.

          Why do i get the one engine high-tech two engine low-tech vibe all over again..

          So Soviet had limited resources.. well first time i ever heard that.
          The problem of Soviet Union> They pumped TOO MUCH resources into the arms race. Try to read a history book if you will.

          Both the Mig-29 and Su-27 was a massive undertaking of programs, by any standard.

          You can't just blame the Mig-29 concept and design for the fall of of Soviet Union, like its the Mig-29 program fault that Soviet went bankruptcy. You just want to smear the Mig-29 design with politics.

          Like i said. If the 90's hadn't happen like it did, and Mig-29M had been realized, then the Mig-29 linage today would have look much more Relevant.
          Last edited by haavarla; 24th August 2017, 18:23.
          Thanks

          Comment

          • Vnomad
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • May 2011
            • 2859

            Originally posted by KGB
            Ukraine has 80 Mig 29's. Uzbekistan has 60. Iran has 40. Kzakistan has 40. North Korea 31. Burma 31

            There are tons of them out there operating. The theory going around that they are dying on the vine and that there will never be a market for the Mig 35 is just bunk. Most of these air forces will do the practical thing and buy a replacement that all of their infrastructure is built around.
            Ukraine, Uzbekistan & Kazakhstan inherited their MiGs from the Soviet Union. The state of Korean aircraft is open to question.

            They're not dying on the vine but buyers haven't exactly been lining up for more, including the ones who already operate them (like Malaysia & India). Ironically, its prospects on the export market have gouged away by its successful larger cousins (Su-27 & Su-30s). The Su-30 probably has a better claim to being the F-16 of the non-Western world, despite its size.

            Comment

            • JSR
              JSR
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Aug 2011
              • 4982

              The fact is that M2K further upgrades closed since year 1999. F16E is stuck since 2003 and no one buying it . MIG35 is future proof. Lots of new weopons and upgrades . several hundred RD93 engine. The supply line of parts will be cheaper to maintain for high tempo operations. Just look what IAF M2K can practically lift and than compare it with MIG-29SMT or MIG29K.

              Comment

              • verbatim
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Aug 2010
                • 261

                Originally posted by haavarla View Post
                That is one sorry opinion..
                So the NATO study was just so much STRONKER with regards to F-16's..

                Wtf does NATO have to do with F-16 in the first place!? It was a US design last time i checked.

                Why do i get the one engine high-tech two engine low-tech vibe all over again..

                So Soviet had limited resources.. well first time i ever heard that.
                The problem of Soviet Union> They pumped TOO MUCH resources into the arms race. Try to read a history book if you will.

                Both the Mig-29 and Su-27 was a massive undertaking of programs, by any standard.

                You can't just blame the Mig-29 concept and design for the fall of of Soviet Union, like its the Mig-29 program fault that Soviet went bankruptcy. You just want to smear the Mig-29 design with politics.

                Like i said. If the 90's hadn't happen like it did, and Mig-29M had been realized, then the Mig-29 linage today would have look much more Relevant.
                Because Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact had to face an Arms race against NATO, not against US only.

                And anyway, yes F-16 was developed along the lines of the "Fighter Mafia", encompassing some inherently versatility in its design, allowing it to evolve seamlessy for around 30 years.

                Again, what's the point on fielding a fighter barely on the same class of a F-16 and with the costs and complexities of a Rafale or a F-18, when you can get a Flanker for a little more?

                Most today's users inherited their Mig-29 fleets form the 80ies or early 90ies.

                If you look at 2Ks procurements, Flankers have largely outperformed Mig-29s.

                Isn't it enough to raise some question about Mig-29's future?

                Comment

                • haavarla
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Dec 2008
                  • 6715

                  Obviously, you missed the "small" part of history where Post Soviet Russia had no chance in hell to pick or prioritize. They had to opt for one over the other. It was the heavy Interceptor Flanker.
                  What a shocker! Everyone with a brain would have done the same.
                  It would not have made any difference what kind of Light design jet it would be. Even if NATO would offer Russia to buy your F-16 during the 90's they could only afford one type, again the Flanker would be the wise choice.

                  Would you rather scrap the Flanker over an F-16!?

                  It is as clear as daylight that you are showing your true colors here. You are not interesting in debating if the Mig-29 design was/is a good and effective one.

                  The Mig-35 is a more capable design over the F-16 if we look at radar size, fuel fraction, ordinance, hell the Mig-29 is even a Carrier bird at this stage! What an awful bad concept and design!!!1! SAD..


                  What you try to push here is that Soviet/Russia opted for the Light fighter with twin podded engines and blended wing body with large LERX as if it is a flawed design just as the Heavy Flanker also was a twin engine podded wing/body LERX jet
                  Like your underline message is that the Flanker concept and design also is flawed..
                  And the the only effective and correct judge of things is which side produced and exported the most.

                  If you can't see the fallacy of this mindset..

                  Honestly i have never liked the Mig-29, but that is just part of my Biased and prefered taste of things.. like i like the F-15C a whole lot better over the F-16.
                  But it doesn't change anything of what the guys at MIKOYAN did when they set about to develop the next and new Generation of jet fighter, Namely the Mig-29.
                  Last edited by haavarla; 24th August 2017, 21:55.
                  Thanks

                  Comment

                  • JSR
                    JSR
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Aug 2011
                    • 4982

                    I am sure F16E prices in 2017 are not that much less than F35 or F15SA.
                    The point of MIG35 is it's built with separate industrial chain.it does not take skilled workers from Flanker production. The bigger Ruaf procurement with modern fighters the more flexibility in putting them in war theatres across the globe. Just look why South Korea now doing summit with Russia . A country ability to attract high quality investments is directly related to it's deployable weopons.

                    Comment

                    • verbatim
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Aug 2010
                      • 261

                      Originally posted by haavarla View Post
                      Obviously, you missed the "small" part of history where Post Soviet Russia had no chance in hell to pick or prioritize. They had to opt for one over the other. It was the heavy Interceptor Flanker.
                      What a shocker! Everyone with a brain would have done the same.
                      It would not have made any difference what kind of Light design jet it would be. Even if NATO would offer Russia to buy your F-16 during the 90's they could only afford one type, again the Flanker would be the wise choice.

                      Would you rather scrap the Flanker over an F-16!?

                      It is as clear as daylight that you are showing your true colors here. You are not interesting in debating if the Mig-29 design was/is a good and effective one.

                      The Mig-35 is a more capable design over the F-16 if we look at radar size, fuel fraction, ordinance, hell the Mig-29 is even a Carrier bird at this stage! What an awful bad concept and design!!!1! SAD..


                      What you try to push here is that Soviet/Russia opted for the Light fighter with twin podded engines and blended wing body with large LERX as if is a flawed design just as the Heavy Flanker also was a twin engine podded wing/body LERX jet
                      And the the only effective and correct judge of things is which side produced and exported the most.

                      If you can't see the fallacy of this mindset..
                      Please?

                      Mig-29 ways developed as a very specialized aircraft.

                      Even giving it a decent internal fuel capacity took several iterations in the 90ies.

                      But, again and again, what's the point having a supposedly "light" fighter that is almost as complex as an heavy one?

                      Point is, as somebody else said, Flankers can do everything a Mig-29 could, better and at a fraction greater cost.

                      Be happy with Mig-29M or Mig-35 it you like so, I would still buy Flankers only, forever.

                      Comment

                      • haavarla
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Dec 2008
                        • 6715

                        Please?

                        Mig-29 ways developed as a very specialized aircraft.

                        Even giving it a decent internal fuel capacity took several iterations in the 90ies.

                        But, again and again, what's the point having a supposedly "light" fighter that is almost as complex as an heavy one?

                        Point is, as somebody else said, Flankers can do everything a Mig-29 could, better and at a fraction greater cost.

                        Be happy with Mig-29M or Mig-35 it you like so, I would still buy Flankers only, forever.
                        Well so would i.
                        But the really weird thing is that Both Russia and Egypt are buying new Mig-29. Instead of only Flankers or F-16's.
                        India with their top heavy segment of MKI's choose to turn 60 Mig-29 into a UPG variant instead of just scraping it and buy more MKI's.
                        And India Navy Aviation bough newer Mig-29K over Su-33 or any other Carrier jet.

                        I don't think our opinions matter much in the bigger picture.

                        Btw, what is the current cost of a RD-33MK over a AL-41FS1..?? since you seems to know the price difference regarding Flanker and Fulcrum
                        Last edited by haavarla; 24th August 2017, 22:23.
                        Thanks

                        Comment

                        • KGB
                          KGB
                          Senior Member
                          • Mar 2016
                          • 1426

                          @Vnomad

                          Ukraine, Uzbekistan & Kazakhstan inherited their MiGs from the Soviet Union. The state of Korean aircraft is open to question.

                          They're not dying on the vine but buyers haven't exactly been lining up for more, including the ones who already operate them (like Malaysia & India). Ironically, its prospects on the export market have gouged away by its successful larger cousins (Su-27 & Su-30s). The Su-30 probably has a better claim to being the F-16 of the non-Western world, despite its size.
                          Poland is also a former Soviet yet you mentioned it in your own post. So I wasn't and still aren't sure what exactly you were getting at. I was just making the point that there is a lot of Mig 29's currently in service. Whether they were exported to those air forces or not.


                          Many of these nations are developing and some are even frontier markets. They aren't developed enough to have a complete air force. So they covered their main needs first. ie full size front line fighters.

                          @FWB
                          No, the F-15 variants (ordered + delivered) exceed that of the MiG-29 exports
                          I highly doubt that but I don't feel like looking it up. Is this contingent on the red herring about X Soveit states not counting as export markets ?

                          Comment

                          • RadDisconnect
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jul 2013
                            • 531

                            Originally posted by haavarla
                            Obviously, you missed the "small" part of history where Post Soviet Russia had no chance in hell to pick or prioritize. They had to opt for one over the other. It was the heavy Interceptor Flanker.
                            What a shocker! Everyone with a brain would have done the same.
                            It would not have made any difference what kind of Light design jet it would be. Even if NATO would offer Russia to buy your F-16 during the 90's they could only afford one type, again the Flanker would be the wise choice.

                            Would you rather scrap the Flanker over an F-16!?

                            It is as clear as daylight that you are showing your true colors here. You are not interesting in debating if the Mig-29 design was/is a good and effective one.

                            The Mig-35 is a more capable design over the F-16 if we look at radar size, fuel fraction, ordinance, hell the Mig-29 is even a Carrier bird at this stage! What an awful bad concept and design!!!1! SAD..


                            What you try to push here is that Soviet/Russia opted for the Light fighter with twin podded engines and blended wing body with large LERX as if it is a flawed design just as the Heavy Flanker also was a twin engine podded wing/body LERX jet
                            Like your underline message is that the Flanker concept and design also is flawed..
                            And the the only effective and correct judge of things is which side produced and exported the most.

                            If you can't see the fallacy of this mindset..

                            Honestly i have never liked the Mig-29, but that is just part of my Biased and prefered taste of things.. like i like the F-15C a whole lot better over the F-16.
                            But it doesn't change anything of what the guys at MIKOYAN did when they set about to develop the next and new Generation of jet fighter, Namely the Mig-29.
                            What. The. Hell??

                            The point is that the Su-27, or Su-30, at only a little more in cost, can outperform the MiG-29. In other words, the MiG-29 is not cheap enough compared to the Su-27 to justify an aircraft with less overall performance. What does their aerodynamic configuration even have anything to do with that argument? What's with you repeatedly harping about all this podded engines and blended wing body and LERX when it literally has no relevance to the argument of cost efficiency?

                            Comment

                            • KGB
                              KGB
                              Senior Member
                              • Mar 2016
                              • 1426

                              @Vnomad

                              Most today's users inherited their Mig-29 fleets form the 80ies or early 90ies.
                              And they elected to keep using them. They did not sell them off or scrap them.
                              Isn't it enough to raise some question about Mig-29's future?
                              I see it as the opposite. Many of the biggest users are still in good relations with Russia. (India, Belarus, Kazakistan, Iran, Iraq ect)

                              With the Mig 35, they can purchase a brand new jet with 5th gen avionics, thrust vectoring and the latest tech, that will fit seamlessly into their existing simulation, maintenance and hangar programs. Pilots will already be versed in the jet as well.

                              So many of these countries will eventually need replacement fighters and I just don't see many of them being dumb enough to start from rock bottom with an entirely different brand.

                              Oh and this.
                              Like your underline message is that the Flanker concept and design also is flawed..
                              And the the only effective and correct judge of things is which side produced and exported the most.



                              The Shah of Iran was basically forced to buy 60 Tomcats so yeah. That certainly is a flaw in the theory
                              Last edited by KGB; 24th August 2017, 23:51.

                              Comment

                              • FBW
                                FBW
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Dec 2011
                                • 3294

                                Originally posted by KGB View Post
                                @Vnomad
                                Poland is also a former Soviet yet you mentioned it in your own post.

                                @FWB


                                I highly doubt that but I don't feel like looking it up. Is this contingent on the red herring about X Soveit states not counting as export markets ?
                                One, Poland was a Warsaw Pact client state, not part of the USSR. Technically, that would count as an export customer.

                                And no, excluding Ukraine and the lot ( which were not export clients as they were part of the USSR) the total number of F-15's exported will exceed the MiG-29's totals (there are still the final S.Korean, Saudi, and Qatar F-15 orders to be completed).

                                The numbers get a bit wonky when u consider the second hand MiG's and the ex-USAF F-15's sent to Israel (in addition to the exports).

                                Comment

                                • Marcellogo
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jun 2014
                                  • 1840

                                  Seems me that we have lost the track there, what was a civil discussion about the objective limit that the MiG-29 in his baseline configuration had is became a sort of chauvinistic showdown with no reason at all.
                                  So, let me just remember two or three things:

                                  First: the fact that the MiG-29 was not considered as a cost efficient solution when compared to the Su-27 is something that the same Russian engineer and military planner has candidly admitted, so there is not need to be more monarchist than the king himself about that.
                                  This obviouly in the catastrophic situation of the nineties n which the number of planes had to be strinked and nor expanded

                                  Second, if a comparison between F-16 and the Mig-29 have to be made(they are instead apples and oranges IMHO), let's do it between comparable blocks please, so F-16A/B against MiG-29A, Block 30/32 against C (9.13) and block 50/52 against M (9.15).
                                  Let's say that trying so to diminish the Mig-29A affirming that it has a radar comparable to the one of F-16ADF is actually making a big, big complement to the ADF i.e. the only A/B variant that could launch a radar guided missile and not just sidewinders.

                                  Third: the Su-27 although having been preferred to the MiG-29 in Rissian Air force has won very few export contracts, the best-seller being instead the Su-30, and in a version deeply different to the meagre 30 ones that has been acquired by Su/Russia itself before this decade.

                                  So, in the end the different destines of those planes had more to do with the exceptional event of the fall of Soviet Union that to the supposed technical or operational shortcoming of any of them.
                                  Last edited by Marcellogo; 25th August 2017, 00:06.

                                  Comment

                                  • FBW
                                    FBW
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Dec 2011
                                    • 3294

                                    Originally posted by KGB View Post
                                    The Shah of Iran was basically forced to buy 60 Tomcats so yeah. That certainly is a flaw in the theory
                                    That is an amazing statement of "alternate" history there KGB. Maybe you should read the story of the fly-off between the F-15 and the F-14 in Iran (correction Andrews AFB)The Shah demanded the sale of state of the art fighters, and put enormous pressure on the U.S. to supply them.

                                    Maybe we should stick to the topic on hand rather than make up alternate history factoids.
                                    Last edited by FBW; 25th August 2017, 00:24.

                                    Comment

                                    • haavarla
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Dec 2008
                                      • 6715

                                      What. The. Hell??

                                      The point is that the Su-27, or Su-30, at only a little more in cost, can outperform the MiG-29. In other words, the MiG-29 is not cheap enough compared to the Su-27 to justify an aircraft with less overall performance. What does their aerodynamic configuration even have anything to do with that argument? What's with you repeatedly harping about all this podded engines and blended wing body and LERX when it literally has no relevance to the argument of cost efficiency?
                                      So tell me, how many RD-33MK engine can be bought for one AL-41FS1?
                                      What was the latest Contract for Indonesian Su-35S andr Egypt Mig-29M2?
                                      This should prove Interesting.
                                      Thanks

                                      Comment

                                      • TR1
                                        TR1
                                        http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                                        • Oct 2010
                                        • 9826

                                        You guys know the Su-27 doesn't outperform the MiG-29 in everything right? Sure when considering fuel load and weapons, the Flanker overall is a magnificent platform, but the Fulcrum has many performance indicators where it leads.
                                        sigpic

                                        Comment

                                        • TR1
                                          TR1
                                          http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                                          • Oct 2010
                                          • 9826

                                          Will someone pls post the specifications of this new missile of SM? I have once read that the new missile will be able to intercept ballistic targets.
                                          does this missile have a RF seeker or it too is command RF guided like its predecessors.
                                          Any Pantsir round can engage ballistic targets, but that is not the primary target for the system. You maybe thinking of the hypersonic "new" round with extended range, this isn't it.
                                          This is a round (as stated) created on the basis of Syrian experience. Not sure if that is true or not, but clearly the direction is to counter numerous UAVs, suicide UAVs, unguided and guided munitions and the liek with a missile that is as cheap as possible.
                                          No way this round has its own seeker, that would be contrary to the Pantsir philosophy.
                                          Pantsir-SM is already increasing missile load per chassis to 19 tubes, with this it will be even larger.
                                          sigpic

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X