Hey Scorps! whats your take on the Indian competition?

Well difficult to say at all. Now where BAE has taken the lead the chances are for sure better, but the Typhoon has yet to become completely multirole including weapons integration and the AESA radar has to be ready as well by the time required by the IAFs schedule. The aircraft is also one of the most, if not the most expensive contender which doesn’t make things easier. Though I wouldn’t bet on any of the contenders at all I think Rafale or MiG-35 will make the run. But never say never…

U clearly said that Russian established Radar parameters based on Ground Tests with no verification whats so ever.

That’s what you interpreted form my post. What I mean is that any radar is designed with specific performance characteristics in mind. These are often published before the radar is actually built and has demonstrated these performance. A perfect example for this is the N-011 of the Su-27M which was claimed to be able to track 15 & attack 6 targets simultaneously. This was the aim, but the radar never achieved this specification. Independent of if the Zhuk now achieves this specification or not, I wouldn’t bet on its capabilities being (fully) demonstrated before these brochure data were published.

So tommorrow if they show a MIG-29K with BARS it does not mean MIG-29K becomes the first MIG with electronic scanning antenna radar.

For sure not, but it would be well in the known that ESA has existed before. That is not the case for the MiG-35. It might be that Zhuk-MAE was tested before in another MiG-29, but until now no source suggests that. What I want to try to make you understand is that the MiG-35 might be the first MiG-29 derivate ever equipped with an AESA and I assume that as no source shows the opposite. That’s not definitive but a reasonable guess.

they didnot use word experimental for MIG-35.

It is not important what exact word they use, maybe avionics testbed or simply demonstrator is better suited. The fact remains that this aircraft a used for testing/demonstration purposes only.

It means there must be one in some experimental form otherwise MIG would have claimed that it is First Russia aircraft with AESA but the cleary said that it is for international audience.

BTW I rediscover/remembered a Phazatron document on my HD from Aero India 2007. Don’t know were to find it on the internet, but a link was posted somewhere in this forum.
An interesting title for one of the topics of the Zhuk-AE is:

First time in Russia, first time on Fulcrum

I haven not interpreted anything.

You have, because you rely as much on these open sources for information about these aircraft as me.

The following quote from you just shows that you “interpret” and “assume” a lot of things:
“It means there must be one in some experimental form otherwise MIG would have claimed that it is First Russia aircraft with AESA but the cleary said that it is for international audience.” <— Clearly an intepretation/assumption not more nor less

Just compare the resources of Sukhoi and MIG and come to conclusion which one will be the first with Russian AESA. Just to certifiy IRKUT plant for Airbus parts they spent $200M. They have another one NAPO for Su-34. Another one KNAPO spending $2B on regiional jet. There is huge gap in financial strength. so there would be more radar sets inside sukhoi.

That is true and somewhat contradicing as well. So do you really believe RAC MiG can afford such a comprehensive testing in the very same way as Sukhoi or not?

trying to find actual capabilities with Ground Tests. what next no need of flying.

You shouldn’t interprete to much of your own in what I say…

There is big write up at http://www.vpk.ru. but u cant search archive. There goal is double the range of 130KM with 60 track.

Then please just post the contense if possible maybe google translated before.

One is experimental aircraft and other is not. What does it say about stage of completion?

That usually says that the technologies in the experimental aircraft are still not fully developed and usually need more time before ending as a final product on an operational airframe.

MIG is not claiming that MIG-35 is first aircraft with AESA but saying first Aircraft with AESA presented to International Audience.

Well it is true that they say it was the first time such an aircraft has been presented to the international public. Nonetheless it tells pretty much nothing about if it is the first aircraft at all or not. I know no other russian fighter fitted with an AESA before the MiG-35. That doesn’t mean there don’t exist one, but it also don’t mean there must be one. As long as no official information are available we can only make assumptions. I see no need to further discuss this as neither you can prove there was another AESA before tested on another MiG-29 or flying testbed in general, nor my can directly prove the opposite. From the information available however the MiG-35 is recognised as the first russian fighter with an AESA installed onboard.

This MIG-35 model has same relationship with current MIG-35 as MIG-29K of 1980s to current MIG-29K. same name different aircraft. Constantly improving with time.

I can’t believe it, do we really come to a conclusion now where we both can agree? That’s actually what I was telling you all over the time. Maybe we were just talking at cross-purposes all the time…?

Again ur own interpretation.?

Basically yes. In the end we both rely on similar sources and due the lack of many details we are both limited to intepretations and assumptions for the areas were no specific details are known.

BARS & IRBIS has similar relationship lik ZHUK-ME & ZHUK-A. IRKUT is very proporus it is not without possiblity that they are not testing it. It is just not presented to International Audience yet. Exactly when u came to know about IRBIS flying on Su-30MK2? Information is always lagging for media.

I basically agree though the difference between Zhuk-ME and Zhuk-A is more significant than between Bars and Irbis. I also agree on not all single steps of testing programms and technological achievments being disclosed to the public and that if such things are disclosed they are often (but not ever) recent.
I don’t exactly recall when I read about the Su-30MK2 acting as Irbis testbed for the first time, but it was mentioned that tests aboard this aircraft began in early 2007.
But to come back to what I’m refering to, my point is that the Zhuk-MAE is very much a demonstrator, an interim device before Zhuk-A is ready and suitable for the MiG-29 airframe. What you said sounded like “Zhuk-MAE is a complete radar ready for installation onboard operational aircraft”. I basically would say it could even be done but the benefits would be limited in comparison to what can be achieved with the Zhuk-A.

Possiblities? from where the world possibilities comes from when we are discussing Facts?.

Well ground tests have defintely conducted prior installation onboard the aircraft, that is a fact! What I meant with that is that ground tests are another way testing technologies. Nitpicking on the word possibilities doesn’t change that fact.

the specification that i mentioned it has been achieved.

Just prove it with a source which confirms that all the specifications published has defintely been demonstrated. Don’t dance around with your arguments just quote a source please.

one is experimental and other is not.

Small confusion what radars do you exactly refer to now?

and whats the signicance of the word INTERNATIONAL AUDIENCE.

That should me say what?

u dont have any facts except misinterpreting news item.

Oh so the MiG-35 model presented on MAKS is just a misintepretation of mine, that Zhuk-MAE is not the radar to be installed aboard the final MiG-35 is a misinterpretation of mine…:rolleyes:

So u think there testing procedures are different? think over it.

There can easily be different approaches for this or that area, that doesn’t mean they are completely different. Yet you still haven’t understand my point. So answer me a question please: On which aircraft has the N-035E Irbis-E been tested before the Su-30MK2 (no.503)?

According to news reprot MIG-35 first flew in Jan 2007 so how radar parameters of 130KM with 680 modules & 200KG with 1100 modules were established along 900hr MTBO. 30 track, 8 engage. Dont u think this will not requires of testing to estabish those parameters on several radar sets? or they did every thing in one month.

Ground tests are another possibility. In addítion the technical data might easily be specifications the radar should reach. That doesn’t automatically mean all these specs has been demonstrated so far.

Facts? ur just interpreting news reports.

True, but still there are some facts which can’t be dismissed, but you do exactly that dismissing very real facts!

they are going through same testing procedures. They head of MIG came from IRKUT.

IAPO and KNAAPO are somewhat independant from each other… For sure there will be similarities as for all test programmes of such a kind all around the world. Yet you still haven’t proven with a single source what I demanded all the time. As you obviously can’t do that I won’t ask again and end this topic.

Austrian delegation visited Italy…

The Austrian Air Force Explores Typhoon Logistics and Flies the M-346

(Source: Alenia Aeronautica; issued March 18, 2008)

An Austrian Air Force delegation led by Brigadier General Hubert Norbret visited Italian Air Force operational and support units to obtain first-hand information in support of the introduction of the Eurofighter Typhoon into Austrian service. Austria is the fifth customer for the state-of-the-art Typhoon and received the first two aircraft of the 15 on order in late 2007.

The visit began at Grosseto air base, home to the 4th Wing, whose commanding officer Col. Vincenzo Nuzzo introduced the Austrian colleagues to the activities of its two squadrons. The 9th Squadron flies the Eurofighter in the air defence role, while the 20th serves as operational conversion unit. The 20th is currently training the pilots for the third Italian Eurofighter squadron.

The Austrian delegation departed Grosseto in an Alenia Aeronautica C-27J provided by the 46th Air Brigade at Pisa.

The next stop was Cameri, where the ITAF has established its main Eurofighter support and logistics installation. Cameri also trains all Eurofighter technical and maintenance staff. From Cameri the delegation proceeded to the Alenia Aermacchi factory at Venegono for briefings on the new M-346 advanced and lead-in fighter trainer.

Two Austrian pilots made flights with the M-346 to essay its technical and training qualities. Both came away with extremely positive impressions, due to the high training effectiveness and considerable “downloading” potential shown by the programme and the aircraft, which make the M-346 a true generational and conceptual leap in military pilot training, particularly well suited to prepare pilots for the Eurofighter and other fourth and fifth generation combat aircraft.

Finally, the Austrian delegation visited the air combat training installations at Decimomannu air base in Sardinia and examined the preparations under way for the coming Spring Flag exercise.

-ends-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com

& Su-35-1 is the test bed for reall production 2010 Su-35 but it does not preclude that subsystems hasnt been tested.

One point I want to add…
I don’t know why you continueously refer to the Su-35-1. The Your comparison is flawed as you obviously fail to understand the different meaning of the current Su-35-1 (no.901) and the current MiG-35 (no.154). The Su-35 as it is now flying since February is a production representive prototype, some refer to it as a pre-production aircraft. When serialy produced Su-35 will leave the assembly line after 2010 these aircraft will be almost identical to the current Su-35-1 flying prototype. The aircraft features the airframe (including structure and aerodynamics), flight controls, engines, onboard system, cockpit and avionics etc.. The same can not be said about the MiG-35! The MiG-35 as it is currently flying since January 2007 is nothing else than a testbed for certain technologies to be applied on the definitive MiG-35 aircraft, a representive prototype of which has yet to be built and flown! The MiG-35 demonstrator flying since 2007 compares much better to the Su-30MK2 (no.503) or Su-27Ms (no.708 & 710) which were used as testbeds for certain technologies of the Su-35! The current MiG-35 acts as a testbed for the Zhuk AESA radar and other avionics, prior being installed aboard a definitive prototype very much like the Su-30MK2 (no.503) was used as testbed for the Irbis radar before it was installed aboard the Su-35-1!

The press release just say AESA equiped MIGS are called MIG-35 nothing more.

Does it? Where? There is more about the MiG-35 than just the AESA radar. The MiG-35 also includes the new OLS-UEM, OLS-K, SOLO, SOAR devices etc., it features aerodynamical changes as unveiled on MAKS. You could also fit an AESA to other MiG-29 but I doubt they all would be redesignated to MiG-35!

so ur clearly wrong that only there is Only ONE AESA Radar set in whole Russia.

I never claimed there would be just one AESA radar in whole Russia, once again you wrong turn my statements. I repeately said that AFAIK there was no other AESA radar testflown onboard another MiG-29 or any other russian fighter before the MiG-35. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any other AESA devices used in ground tests. You claim that another AESA radar was tested onboard another MiG-29 test aircraft before the MiG-35 demonstrator was flown and there I asked you to provide a source which proves that. Until now you have copy pasted a lot of press releases but no of these press releases confirmed that an AESA radar was flown onboard any russian combat aircraft before the MiG-35. That’s what I’m speaking about all the time, but you still haven’t realized that.

They are not multirole for India.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOL. Honestly such stupidy don’t need any further comments.

Ur still not understanding. MIG-35 alread has one foot in the door by licensing of RD-33. there is no point for engine license for mere 70 aircraft. And i dont believe HAL/GTRE can handle more than Kaveri/RD-33/AL-31/AL-55. and plethora of other engines overhaul/maintainance.

You seem to forget that India doesn’t soley operate russian aircraft types. I won’t discuss which of the 6 types makes the run as way to much factors play a role. I don’t doubt that the MiG-35 has good chances, but again your pushing the discussion into another direction.