LMFSMalaysia are going to buy MiG-35s? I thought they were buying Kuwaiti AF F/A-18s second-hand?
Just negotiations it seems
https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2019/08/517247/russian-president-shares-special-bond-dr-m
https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2019/09/05/malaysia-considering-russian-offers-on-new-migs-says-dr-m/
https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2019/09/05/malaysia-considering-russian-offer-on-new-mig-fighter-jets-says-pm/1787598
LMFSThere seems to be talks about a new business option for the MiG-29s and 35, discussed in relation to Malaysia. Russia would get the currently inoperative MiG-29 and sell in exchange the -35 at a reduced price.
This may in fact be quite interesting, if applied on a large scale:
– The customer would benefit from reduced prices and make some use of their otherwise obsolete or inoperative fighters
– MiG-35 would be sold easier than having to compete in equal terms with other competitors.
– Russia could use the old MiGs in a variety of ways: first, doing a basic overhaul and selling them at air forces in need of almost anything flying for very friendly prices, almost for free or in exchange of other “currency”, be it economical or political, that can be of use. Given many of Russia’s allies are under extreme economic pressure, it is not hard to find countries which would be among the ones who would benefit the most: Syria, Serbia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela all would benefit from having the MiG-29 in a reasonable state either to have some form of fighter force at all or to boost it accordingly to the increased threats. Second, they could be upgraded heavily and sold to India for instance in order to boost their number of operational squadrons.
They would not make trillions but would load their repair factories, get business for the MiG-35, keep customers and get further profits through the maintenance of an expanded MiG fleet. Maybe it works, who knows.
There have been also comments that the contract with Egypt for the MiG-29M was finally closed at this year’s MAKS.
LMFSLMFS , On Mig-41 program the last boss of Almaz-Antey Igor Ashurbeyli had said in an interview that the next generation SAM that they were working on wont be land based but will be only Air Based.
This was way back in 2011 when he was boss but he didnt revel more details.
Likely besides being an interceptor the Mig-41 will Lug along the next generation SAM in their underbelly to take on ASAT and BM targets , Flying High and Fast has the advantage that you can travel many 100 km in many minutes and dont waste energy in booster to take your SAM to tens of Km in Altitude making you SAM smaller in Size and Weight.
Also the possibility that Mig-41 will carry laser based weapon cannot be ruled out either.
Thanks for the info Austin, I was not aware of that statement and it fits perfectly with the stated aim of making MiG-41 even faster and higher flying than MiG-31. If it is going to operate as a mobile AD launcher, the faster it moves, the more holes in the land based AD it covers, and the smaller the missiles need to be.
A missile launched from say 25 km altitude at 4 M is going to reach massive speeds or can even just coast for huge ranges to hunt enemy fighters flying between 10 and 20 km high, therefore the practical engagement zone of the interceptor will be increased many times.
LMFSWell if it is not the Kalibr-M, then what is it?
I have not seen any reports of a smaller cheaper Kalibr for their Navy.
Only improved Kalibr. Missiles.
It is a regular Kalibr, there is no single mention in the media that normally refer these developments to a new version being tested. It would be too soon also for Kalibr-M being tested, considering when it was mentioned.
LMFSAnother issue with hypersonic vehicles is avionics/systems cooling. A hypersonic missile, with total flight time of <15 minutes, can use thermal heat sink or evaporative cooling for avionics. A long duration hypersonic drone or manned vehicle requires a cooling system which can operate up to an hour+. Even exotic systems like the Space Shuttle ammonia boiler was marginal for systems cooling. Your expensive hypersonic airplane is useless if the avionics stop working because they got too hot.
4 M is not hypersonic
LMFSDid you hear that News anchor guy talk about a new Kalibr Missile and are you capable reading Engrish?
Did you bother to look at the link at all?
.
Yes haavarla, that is why I ask. I saw no single claim to the missile being a new one. It was the first Kalibr launch by that particular vessel, that is all I saw.
LMFSWhile these improvements will increase its competitiveness against the Eurocanards it doesn’t appreciably alter the status of the MiG-35 as too little, too late though. Maybe if they’d followed through with it back then and walked away with the Indian MRCA contract, but 10 years on it’s just a dead end. IMHO MiG’s future as a competitive OKB ended when their Skat UCAV initiative failed to raise interest with the Russian military, also in 2007. Not sure whether their own leadership or the military must accept more of the blame for that mistake, but it was a turning point as PAK-FA was always going to be Sukhoi’s to lose. MiG-29 derivatives simply don’t offer enough of a cost saving over Flankers to be worthwhile, as the defection of numerous promising export prospects demonstrates (Algeria, Malaysia, Venezuela, Vietnam, Indonesia, Uganda, Myanmar).
True, MiG needs to ensure their viability on their own and the only way is by selling the -35 in meaningful numbers, this will mean probably very low prices and go for the Indian tender as if there is no more tomorrow, with aggressive maintenance and ToT proposals. Indians have the opportunity to make a very good deal I think. Other air forces may be compelled to do the same if Russian and Indian experience is good, many countries have no meaningful AF or are operating such obsolete planes that a MiG-35 at a substantial discount would be a wonderful deal for them, among them many of Russia’s traditional allies. For MiG and their supplier base to sell with minimum profit would still be much better than to keep writing loses year after year until Rostec’s patience runs thin and they are finally consolidated. This can be pretty much the defining moment for MiG I think.
BTW, Tarasenko claimed new wing and keels for improved structure and aero performance, it seems like there is an ongoing development until they freeze design for a relevant contract? All indicates the VKS orders of MiGs are just an industrial base motivated decision I would say: [INDENT]”We installed a new radar with an active phased array which can simultaneously track 30 targets simultaneously hit six goals, both in the air and on the ground. We did here the new wing and the keels – this is from the point of view of the aircraft structure. Improved aerodynamics,” says General Director of JSC RAC “MIG” Ilya Tarasenko.[/INDENT]
LMFSNo i am very serious here.
Just because the Aviation Industry has advanced significally since the SR-71 days, it does not in the slightest mean we can now build and fly an Interceptor that can operate meaningfull between Mach 3-4. It is simply not realistic.
Well, I don’t know. When I hear professionals saying the MiG-41 will fly at speeds up to 4.2 M, at first I can be sceptic that we are talking about anything with a real base or to be done any time soon, because I didn’t know any usable propulsion system capable of such speeds, but essentially they are the ones in the know so our claims don’t carry so much weight against theirs I would say. Then I start reading about real engines being developed, the last one of those, the RTA, is based on the YF120 and meant almost exactly for that speed range, and I have to think there is actually a possibility for Russians to be onto something real, since the applicable propulsion concept exists and furthermore the original AL-41F was a similar engine to YF120.
Regarding the thermal loading, materials today allow things that were not possible before, like the latest developments in hypersonics prove.
As for the aerodynamics to have both long subsonic range and high max speed, Tu-160 is a good example of a plane having both, so I guess you are being too categorical. Apart from variable geometry I don’t know what concrete solutions could be used in the MiG-41, it seems it will be a very unique plane, and to be honest I have not thought much about it, but seeing it from the VKS perspective it would make a lot of sense to have shortest reaction times, which will be critical to fight against mass attacks of increasingly faster missiles. At a certain missile speed, you will simply not have the time to get your planes in the air to help blunt a saturation attack and you will need to have as many aircraft permanently in the air as possible.
You do not need to go at Mach 3 or 4 to make these weapons effective.
Yeah, and you surely don’t need planes at all since there are missiles which fly much faster. You seem to forget the enormous energy advantage that planes have against missiles due to their big fuel tanks and capacity to generate lift in an economic way. Making planes progress in the kinematic aspect is always going to be very important, in order to use and defend from missiles effectively. Form the interceptor’s point of view, speed continues to be important because you cannot cover the land with SAMs in order to defeat a concentrated attack of big size, less even considering the arms race we are heading to.
LMFSNew KalibrM Missile tested.
Its new and different alright. It does not have the booster and directional thrusters for manuvere at initial launch.
It probably contain far more fuel this way.
How much increased Range(not that the Kalibr have a poor range) does this thing have now?
Where have you read that this is a Kalibr-M? That missile should have 4500 km range, but I have not heard anything about it being tested already. That particular test was against a naval target at just 40 km distance, so it was probably the anti-ship and not the land attack version.
LMFSNow wait a minute.. i thought it was established that this Supersonic speed requirement, was something of the past..?
You are being ironic …right? 😀
For the MiG-41 the same characteristics of MiG-31 have been named… only taken further. It makes sense for an interceptor, don’t you think? The development of hypersonic weapons and the extension of the battlefield into near space do not encourage to abandon supersonic interception requirements, quite the contrary.
How about even better mission range over Mig-31, stow some weapons inside the thing, make a side by side crew arrangement for long missions.
First two make sense, and as suggested above the use of a VCE would greatly help to get a longer subsonic range, but the third is difficult to reconcile with speed requirements, unless the plane is huge.
The best would be a plane with very long patrol time at subsonic speed but capable of very fast dashes. This would reduce a most critical aspect in interception missions, the time needed to put your aircraft in the air. A plane on station with 4 M speed would in principle cover 4 times as much airspace as a plane capable of only 2 M, to put it in round numbers, not to talk about the brutal energy/range imparted to all kind of missiles it would carry. Its defensive capabilities would be amazing too, to the point that a current AMRAAM could not even overcome its top speed. It would be very capable too, to launch ASAT weapons, as implied in the RTA slide, and who knows what other weapons, like a big brother of Kinzhal or even substrategic gliders. The key is propulsion, if this is solved, many opportunities will appear.
Reaching Mach 1.8 without afterburners is not future-proofing anything, again that’s NOT the F-22’s optimal design speed, that’s just when max dry thrust and drag are at equilibrium and max dry thrust is not considered cruising. F-22 was NOT specifically designed for Mach 1.8 at max dry thrust, it was designed for most efficient supercruise at Mach 1.5 and the other speed performance numbers are just the result of that. Besides, when defending against SAMs the difference between Mach 1.5 and 1.8 is not going to make much difference, instead of other factors like stealth, weapons, etc.
Ok, I understand, but that does not mean that a kinematic advantage is not an advantage in the end. Between 1.8 and 1.5 M there is a 20% difference in speed and hence less time for the SAMs to react and engage. Sorry, I cannot help considering it relevant, besides the question remains: why do you think ATF had as a most relevant parameter to attain supersonic cruise? They certainly were seeing an advantage in sustaining a high speed. A plane flying more than 20 km high at almost 2 M is a pretty difficult target and in practice only highest-end SAMs have a chance at catching them.
Wing sweep is not just driven by speed. Higher wing sweep provides larger mean aerodynamic chord in order to tolerate bigger shifts in CG, especially since Su-57 main weapon bays are tandem. As another example, MiG-31 wing sweep is 41 degrees compare to F-15 sweep of 45 degrees and F-22 sweep of 42 degrees yet MiG-31 is faster than both.
Yes, but it is a factor that reduces drag at high speeds, so consistent with a high cruising speed.
What you say regarding the chord and CoG is interesting, I assumed they would play with the LEVCONS and TVC to have a very wide base to accommodate for balance changes. The large aerodynamic chord has also another advantage which is allowing wing tanks of big capacity despite low relative height needed for supersonic flight, as stated in the patent. Interestingly, the downside of such wing of having increased drag during turning was reduced in the same way as in the F-22 by overlapping the tails and the wing at its root…
The example of the MiG-31 is maybe a bit misleading, since as an interceptor it does not have the same lift / turning requirements as the other fighters you mention, but of course a design needs to be considered as a whole, that I agree.
LMFSMoar Gold from Snaks 2019;
Awesome_Sauce at 03:30!
Good video and amazing horizontal turn at that time mark :eagerness:
@Trident:
In a better world it would be indeed a great business opportunity for Russia to participate as supplier for the global engine market, no doubt. But diverting scarce resources to tackle projects that are so vulnerable to political intentions could backfire. Maybe there is no malice in US vendors not scaling up production in the current market environment, but as soon as malice is needed it will be used, screwing Russia is an official state policy in US.
Let us see how France position themselves, they have been bolder lately than I personally expected. If Safran is serious over the long term then it is worth giving it a try (from the article, UFA should be already looking at manufacturing titanium pieces for them as we speak), but what should not be done is to delay the real deal (the domestic engine projects) because of some nice words and stunning hypothetical profits. The thing that makes Russian industry’s position stronger over the long term is the ability to go solo. In a bit more than five years with their civilian aviation industry restored, Russia will not depend on the West, but maybe Safran will be in need of Russia and willing to pay accordingly. If the expected trade war US-EU starts in earnest they will be highly vulnerable because of their sole-sourced parts, the French are probably acutely aware of this and hence their current interest.
On a different topic:
This is taken from a presentation user Sens posted on the F-35 thread. I took this screenshot as I personally think the MiG-41 program could rely on this very engine approach, probably based on the izd. 20 or maybe izd. 30 (the former AL-41F was already in the right size I would say) to get unprecedented supersonic performance with a claimed max speed of 4 M:
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”RTA_VCE_001.jpg”,”data-attachmentid”:3872337}[/ATTACH]
LMFShttps://www.slideshare.net/PraveenPratapSingh2/variable-cycle-engine-ppt-65048391
See 9/34 about that.
Great read, thanks! This is going to become a crucial matter over the next years, for sure :eagerness:
LMFSCan any body translate the Russian part of Su-57E
Here:
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”Su-57_MAKS2019_EN.png”,”data-attachmentid”:3872283}[/ATTACH]
LMFSNot only that, but it seems a good portion of this shortage comes, interestingly enough, because of some US vendors that are not increasing their output:
For Russia the path is clear, create the PD-8 and say goodbye both to an extremely expensive Safran and to their unsurprisingly unwilling US suppliers.
LMFSIt may be from Piotr Butowski article, I’ll try to find where I read it. But I know one of the goals is for izd.30 to be cheaper to buy and run.
No dispute re. maintenance, re. fuel consumption I have my doubts due to the reason named above.
From what djcross said the 8,200 kg fuel commonly stated may be weight limit for runway operations and it can carry more when refueled from the air.
Are there any sources available for this claim? It sounds decidedly weird to me that a plane with MTOW of 38 tons cannot take-off with the full internal fuel @ <30 tons, but who knows…
Aircraft design is not contest to see which has better numbers. They’re designing aircraft to meet their requirements, not to match or exceed another aircraft number for number. So what if F-22 can reach that speed without afterburner? Why does that matter, and would simply getting that “supercruise” speed even relevant? Besides, just because F-22 can go that fast without afterburner doesn’t mean that’s the normal supercruise speed since that’s not the design speed and its very inefficient there even without afterburner. Even F-22 max speed is probably below F-15, but it doesn’t matter for the F-22 either.
+
Again just because F-22 can reach Mach 1.8 without afterburners doesn’t mean it’s cruising there. But max supercruise speed is better than YF-22 because the production F-22 has better area ruling, especially in the rear fuselage where it’s much slimmer than YF-22, so better area ruling.
While I very much agree that national defence goes a bit further than a pure cock measuring contest, in the end the required capabilities of a new weapons systems are determined by the level of the threat. F-15 as a response to MiG-25, Su-27 as a response to F-15 and so on until PAK-FA. It is simply unavoidable for the VKS to look at what US (F-22) can do in order to counter it. In order to get favourable match statistics, they need to avoid weak spots in each and every one of the aspects. You can reflect on the program and the plane’s features to see this holds true for almost all thinkable parameters, because relying on tactics or supporting assets instead of the individual system’s capability is not a very robust way of planing force. In terms of cruising speed as said it is not only F-22 that should be of concern, but the newer platforms propelled by adaptive engines, which will be in the best conditions for a very effective supercruise.
> Why F-22’s cruise speed matters? Because it allows to reduce engagement chances for the enemy and increases the effectiveness of the own missiles and in general, an advantage to control the engagements. Do we agree on this or am I missing something important? Why is supercruise a crucial requirement of 5G?
> Design speed of the F-22: you say that the series design was modified in order to get better area ruling than the YF-22, if I got it right. Was this done to get better fuel consumption and the increase in cruising speed was circumstantial? Little probable, since you claim the redesign reduced the fuel capacity… In any case it is obvious that if cruising fast is good, the faster you can do it the better, and the more future-proof your design will be. This means increased TSFC of course, but that makes part of the deal once you go for supersonic cruising. A F-22 deployed for CAP in ME for example is not compelled to cruise at 1.8 M, facing peer-level aircraft/SAMs in a high intensity conflict it would be different I am sure!
For “mature” Su-57 the supercruise speed is probably similar to F-22, probably not much difference to really matter.
Thanks for your take on that. I am not implying it will make much of a difference, but probably coming later VKS prefers being a bit in front than a bit behind. The design reserve re. F-22 (in terms of wing sweep, intake size / design) points to them not willing to fall short of further US developments.
Also Marchukov didn’t provide “data”, just some general statements that you can’t really make conclusions on specific performance numbers on.
Agree, as said this is only about qualitative estimations as in “equal or higher than” and so on. For instance, he said the low TSFC of AL-31F will be preserved. He also said specific thrust is highest. This should allow for a relative positioning of the izd. 30 compared to other types and what is the intent of Russia when developing an engine of such characteristics. They never give concrete numbers in general, and with reason.
The plan of PAK-FA program was always planned to have a Stage 1 and Stage 2 engine, with izd.117 being Stage 1. That is just how Russia (and Soviet Union) did fighter development. For example first Su-27 prototypes used AL-21 instead of the AL-31 for production aircraft.
This is done when you are late with your engine, which has been the case with a number of Russian and Soviet programs. With the MFI they invested heavily and early in order to avoid that, but then the program failed and they saw themselves in the same difficult situation again with the PAK-FA. It is IMHO not a desired or reasonable practice, because it creates unnecessary expenses and efforts (for instance by creating production lines twice, which is extremely costly). Only in this case I think the 117 will be used in the Flanker fleet, by which they minimize the downsides of this approach.
Supercruise is a critical requirement of PAK-FA, but they’re not going to define it in terms of F-22 supercruise speed, they’ll define it on what they need. And even for development of ATF the requirement was never Mach 1.8 supercruise speed, it was always Mach 1.5. In fact I would say if F-22 supercruise speed was reduced to Mach 1.5, but it got better range, it would have been better aircraft.
See above, I do think F-22 is the necessary reference against which the PAK-FA is designed in most aspects. On the one hand US is the obvious, existential threat that shapes the whole Russian defensive structure, on the other covering it the rest of possible rivals are covered too.
As to the range remark, I tend to agree, it was strange that US, in no real hurry to field the F-22, decided against the YF120, that would have been the future-safe solution. Now they are vulnerable to the deployment of a similar engine in Russia, and given the work was already done with the izd. 20, they were (IMO) gambling a bit too much there.
Even bypass ratio isn’t not always best indicator for “supercruise” speed. For example, F-16C with F110-GE-129 is a bit faster in mil than with F100-PW-229, even though PW-229 has much lower bypass ratio.
I think that claim is not an obvious call, from what I have seen, given the GE has higher airflow and bigger intake too. Even the manufacturer figures can be disputed by experienced tech guys. But I think I get what you mean.
Re. the BPR, obviously is not the only thing that counts but it is pretty much the main driver, all other technological aspects being equal, and unsurprisingly the path used both by Europe and US when developing supercruising aircraft (see low BPR of both F119 and EJ2000) and also the main issue tackled with the new VCEs.
BTW, I was not aware it but it seems the “supercruising” term was coined in the times of the ATF program meaning cruising speed above 1.5 M. I think this interpretation is not universal or has been forgotten, since many claims appeared recently about planes that can “supercruise” just because they sustain > 1 M without AB, which was already common before the advent of the 5G. So to address Austin’s remarks, I doubt Su-57 can currently “supercruise” in that strict sense of the word but can probably cruise in supersonic regime already with the 117.
Sign In
