Not so fast!

Service life figures are only comparable if derived from similar usage specifications and structural design assumptions. They are therefore inherently somewhat arbitrary, as the F-15 demonstrates quite nicely. If operated in keeping with the original mission profile, the Eagle would have a life expectancy (according to then state-of-the-art prediction methods) of 16000h.
However, actual operational usage reduced that to 4000h initially, with an extension to 8000h after re-testing and appraising the results with a more detailed and up to date understanding of fatigue processes.

While I agree on the first part, the F-15A-D were designed for 4000 h only and life extended to 8000 h. The 16000 h figure applies to the F-15E only.

A similar situation developed with the F-16 and F/A-18 BTW, which sometimes required structural upgrades just to meet their original service life goals!

In some cases this is true yes. New F-16s delivered today are designed for 8000 h from the outset, while older examples (such as the MLUs) were life extended to 8000 h.

In other words, is quite possible that a MiG-29 would achieve a substantially longer service life than 2000h if held to the same standards that would see a F/A-18 achieve 4000h.

With life extension the MiG-29’s airframe could reach around 4000 h according to RAC MiG (MiG-29SMT), though the life extension for the IAF’s MiG-29UPG is reportedly resulting in 3500 h.

An hour in one case is not necessarily an hour in the other 😉 Without knowing the basis from which MiG and McDonnell-Douglas derived their projections, there is no way you can tell. Same with g-limits, despite not flying from carriers the Swiss Hornets needed a higher proportion of titanium parts to retain their service life with a 9g rating (contrary what some people on this forum used to claim)!

Agree in general, though you can be sure that the original F-16 or F-15 were designed for not to dissimilar if not more demanding profiles. Considering the MiG’s heavy reliance on GCI they were first and foremost designed to reach a target in short time and preferably destroy it at BVR distances if possible, switching to WVR when the BVR encounter failed or targets were left.

In fact, with its substantial (for the time) use of composites, structural design was arguably the saving grace of the MiG-29 which was so badly compromised by its auxiliary intakes (fuel capacity).

Any info on the use of composites for the original MiG-29? Afaik they were using some GRFP, but removed the components as they caused some accidents.

MIG-29 airframe was crude for reason. how many MIG-29 were produced between 1983-1990? and compare the production rate of Mirage-2000/F-18?

MiG-29: 1345
Mirage 2000: 578 (IIRC)
F/A-18A-D: 1243

Of course it was crude for a reason (inferior manufacturing technology, simplistic design for low costs), but that doesn’t change any facts here.

Dassault moved on because its M2K was not fundamentally correct approach to built long lasting fighter.

The M2k airframe lasts way longer than any MiG derivative and in the end the M2k was meant to be an interceptor in the first place. And ehy wasn’t it fundamentally “correct”? Once again spreading nonsense. The funny part about you is that you make a lot of claims, but you neither prove, nor explain them in any appropriate manner.

MIG-29 derivates are surpassing western designs. not catching up.

Wrt the structural design they have just been catching up and the rest is debatable.

MIG-29K can outaccelerate/Climb both Rafale and F-18E. and with TVC the game is pretty much over in turn rates.

Feel free to prove what you claim with data instead of trash talk and no operational MiG is fitted with TVC at all, so that’s a moot argument, let alone that TVC won’t help you much when it comes to turn rates.

and how MIG-29K is less capable. does all of sudden MICA provide greater range than R-77M1. or there is something happened with its underpowered engines. MIG-29 has higher ceiling and greater top end speed. and that will matter in the range of its strike weopons. There is nothing like Kh-31PM/ Kh-31AD/Kh-35. I am not sure latest Exocet can match 260km range of Kh-35.

Ceilling is more or less comparable, maximum speed not of relevance and your Russian wonder weapons are mostly not operational, in many cases not even in production, so wake me up when your wet dreams have become reality. And Meteor is on the way, what equivalent exists to the Scalp-EG 400 km long range stand-off missile and the AASM multi-mode stand-off weapon… The Russians have some unique weapons, supersonic anti-ship missiles in particular, but it’s not like the west has nothing up to its sleeves.

Currently Rafale dont offer this specific capability. your pretty much dependent on wishfull completion of Galileo.

GPS = GALILEO = GLONASS That’s simplified but in essence all of them allow for ground independent precise navigation. As long as the Rafale isn’t sold to states which are considered as not trustworthy enough, thus not obtaining GPS licenses that is a non-issue!

ok. so what big difference with Su-27SK.

About 1000 kg! Emtpy weight of the Su-27 is stated with 16000-16380 kg.

Yup Mirage-200 is right aircraft. That is pretty static since 1970s. No increase in internal volume, no performance boost, no chance of electronic scanning radar or Optical systems. forget about TVC or carrier variant.
Mirage-2000 will never lunch 4 supersonic antiship missiles.
Rafale production will continue but it does not mean it will get substantially changed.

The basic airframe hasn’t changed for the Mirage 2000 true, but it didn’t need to like the MiG-29. The MiG’s airframe was rather crude with a low life time, payload capacity and low internal volume. The similarly sized F/A-18 offered 3 times the airframe life, more than twice the external payload capacity and about 60% more internal fuel. At the same time the aircraft was about 450 kg lighter, despite being a carrier borne fighter! It demonstrates that the MiG-29’s structural design was rather crappy. The latest MiG-29 derivatives are just catching up with western designs as they were back in the late 70s/early 80s! That’s a serious point you obviously ignore here. And as others said Dassault moved on and developed the Rafale, while RSK MiG is still further developing its old design from the Mirage 2000 era. So while new MiGs might exceed the Mirage 2000, they don’t reach the level of the Rafale in many ways.

larger nose is now needed. as Rafale started with small to begin with.

You won’t see a larger nose period.

I am sure it will be much more than Rafale in weapons & systems. There wont be independent capability like Glonass with Rafale.

That’s your opinion, but it’s hardly based on facts, but wishful thinking. And GLONASS itself reflects no advantage over GPS and Europe is working on Galileo which offer independence from the US if that’s your concern here.

I didnot say Su-35 is lighter. just there is no evidence that it is heavier either.

You just need to do the math and arrive at a ball park figure!
NTOW as stated by KnAAPO is 25300 kg. That includes 2 x R-73 (2 x 110 kg) and 2 x R-77 (2 x 175 kg). Internal fuel is probably 60% (60% from 11500 kg = 6900 kg). Add an equipped pilot ~100 kg, fluids and decoys (200 kg), gun ammo (150 * 0,386 kg), two pylons for the R-77s (~200 kg) and you can do the math!

25300 – 220 – 350 – 6900 – 100 – 200 – 58 – 200 = 17272 kg. A more accurate calculation could be done when we have the exact weight of the pylons, decoys and fluids (hydraulics etc.).

Hi Scorpion,

I am referring to some early testing, where 3 targets were tracked @ 148 kilometers.

http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2009/08/zhuk-ae-aesa-radar-finished-flying.html

The new Zhuk-AE (that is, larger array) improved on this number, though the final numbers are debatable. It has been flying on the MIG-35 since earlier this year. There was mention in a Russian aviation magazine that figures achieved were north of 200km, I don’t have the link on hand though.

Contract for MiG-29K is actively underway. It was already supposed to be signed a month back or so, but they could not agree on price.

Thanks for the info and the link. Still no reference wrt the target RCS. that the Zhuk-AE has just been flown earlier this year confirms my point that it was the MAE which was demonstrated to the Indians.

consider how much time has passed since Rafale is developed. Rafale is currently on its last legs of development.

Stop spreading bull. The Rafale will serve for 3+ decades to come and is in fact just at the beginning of its service carreer, the MiG-29 is in service since 1983, though newer versions will serve beyond 2030, the world wide MiG-29 fleet will have declined to a few dozen examples. There are in fact no upgrades planned for the MiG-29 as of now, the MiG-35 might never happen and the number of operational MiG-29K/M remains modest without any further orders. Rafale production will continue for quite some time, the same is not guaranteed for the MiG. You are comparing the wrong aircraft here, the Mirage 2000 is the right aircraft to compare to the MiG-29, not the Rafale.

does this robust upgrade path includes upgrated engines, enlarged nose?

Uprated engines and even TVC remain an option. You won’t see a larger nose on the vast majority of fighters either and that includes the MiG as well, so your argument is once again nonesense.

Fulcrum has even more robust upgrade path.

Really what upgrade path are you talking about? Upgrading old MiGs with 1990s technology?

All the new weopons for PAK-FA will tickle down.

Let’s see what weapons will be integrated on both aircraft!

IN will certainly use those Fulcrums for next 40 years.

Fine an impressive 45, if no more orders are secured…

I clearly mentioned there is differences in Su-35 airframe and subsytems that didnot contribute to weight increase.

You try to dodge the question. Tell us what’s the empty weight of the Su-35S and I’m not interested in lame “it’s lighter” claims without any substantial base for it.

why would MIG-35 heavier than MIG-29M. how much is Su-35 with 11.5 ton internal fuel is heavier than old Su-35? It is safe to assume that MIG-35 is on diet. by investing money on MIG-35 more weight can be shaved. but not with Rafale. Airframe of MIG-35 has much more advancement potential than Rafale

The MiG-35 has larger wings, intakes, heavier radar, OLS-K etc. That adds quite some weight which is hardly compensated for by the modest amount of composites. Add the structural strengthening to increase MTOW, payload and airframe life time and you are looking at an aircraft which is for sure not lighter than its predecessor. Your comparison of the Su-27M and Su-35S is lacking, because the Su-27M resembles a different configuration (canards, larger fins, no airbrake…). On top of that the Su-35S employs composites to a much greater extend than the MiG-35. In reality the empty weight of the Su-35S is not even disclosed, but if someone is smart enough to do the math using the data published one arrives at the conclusion that the Su-35S empty weight is somewhere in the range between 17-17.5 t.

well Rafale is 10ton class. with 7.5ton engines. 3 ton thrust is alot of difference for acceleration. TVC will help in turning a loaded aircraft.

Classes are not exact specifications and raw engine thrust alone is meaningless in isolation! The weight, lift and drag of an aircraft are all important and determining factors. A Boeing 747 isn’t accelerating faster or has a better TWR than a fighter like the MiG-29 just because it has stronger engines. I hope you grasp the point here. And the Rafale’s empty weight figure as stated by Dassault is a weight class, not an exact weight figure, you have to take into account that there are three different models of the Rafale with their empty weights ranging from 9500 kg (C) over 9720 kg (B) to 10130 kg (M). It’s possible that the aircraft gained some weight from F2 to F3 and the F3+ will certainly add a bit more weight as well due to its AESA radar but you aren’t looking at much more than perhaps 200 kg at best. In a combat config you would need to add more than just fuel, but I simplified the calculation for both aircraft excluding weapons etc. The operational empty weight of an aircraft includes fluids such as hydraulic oil, gun ammunition, pilot weight, chaff/flare decoys, pylons for the weapon and often a minimum fuel as well. That weight is given with 10220 kg for the Rafale C F3, though it’s not exactly specified what’s being included as a whole in that figure.

Problem is higher thrust engines are available for Su-30. and Rafale is not that light. Loading Rafale with external weopons it loses all its RCS advantage.

If external stores would entirely neglect the advantages of signature reduction no one would actually care to implement such features. It’s certainly worse in comparison to a clean aircraft, but still better than that of an aircraft with a several times greater RCS. And the Flanker relies on external carriage of stores as well, so it’s a moot point. And while stronger engines are ready and could be fitted to the Su-30 without much effort, there are currently no plans to do this. More importantly your point about the Rafale being underpowered in comparison to the Su-30 is completely wrong as both aircraft offer a similar TWR, with the Rafale having a slight edge at light AA weights and the Su-30 offering a slight advantage at MTOW. So they are roughly the same as they are now.

Maybe not, but there is the existence of an essentially plug-in FM1 engines already used on Flanker airframes, not to mention the more advanced derivatives that do require slight structural changes like the 117S. Surely a more secure future in terms of engine advancement than the Rafale.

They have engines ready if required yes.

Regarding radars, even the smaller Zhuk-AE array from a few years back surpassed the MMRCA required radar range, which was not at all huge. Phazatron has stated that the large array detected fighter targets at past 200km range…so IDK. Failing might not mean actual capability for range, but perhaps a hardware failing of a relatively new system during testing.

Afaik the IAF’s requirement was for 130 km against a fighter sized target. Phazotron stated 130 km for the Zhuk-MAE in its specs which matches exactly the requirement. Whether this figure has been reached in reality is yet another question and the article is rather clear on that “failed to achieve the required acquisition and tracking ranges“. There is no room for interpretation here. It was the Zhuk-MAE which was demonstrated to the Indians, so the Zhuk-AE might meet the requirements, the MAE didn’t according that article.

“The Zhuk-MAE fitted to the prototypes falls short of range performance, remains to be seen whether the final Zhuk-AE with a larger antenna will achieve the brochure specs which might exceed the raw range performance of the RBE2AA. ”

Nope, this isnt 2009, the current Zhuk-AE prototypes were boosted from 160km’s to 250km’s well over a year ago. There were interviews and articles about this a couple months before MAKS. In tests they’ve had no problems with range if the open source lit can be trusted. Hell, they are so confident with the basic Zhuk-AE technology they are scaling up to naval radars based on the same modules. You will never make up for having a smaller nose. The Chinese at least understand this which is why the J-20 looks the way it looks.

No idea the Zhuk-MAE’s detection range against a 3 sqm target was stated with 130 km and that of the Zhuk-AE was stated with 200 km against a 3 sqm in the specs of the manufacturer. The reports about the radar being not impressive (Zhuk-MAE) came from the Indian trials. Have the circumstances your quoted range figures been given (target RCS etc.)?