By this standard Al-31 should reach 93,000lbs of thrust by 2017. How’s that coming? :rolleyes:

Snecma hasnt completed M-88 integration either with M2K or LCA. It may not reliable or suitable for single engine fighter at this point.
when you consider GE engines ordered or to be ordered for LCA. Alteast untill 2030 Snecma will not be able to provide. so Indians are basically paying double money. buying Rafale & GE engines at same time with simultaneous overhaul of M-53. ideally they should have one engine for all three fighters overtop of this one.
All those in past were best of times for M-88.

Now consider AL-31 started at 27,500 lbs thrust.
Increase in life from 1500hr to 4000hr.
Integration of TVC nozzles.
Now big engineering effort was done to provide reliable engine with rapid accelaration to fighter like J-10.
Certifying engine for Su-34. That is 50% increase in MTOW & big increase in drag over base Flanker.
Even from F-16A to F-16E is 40% increase in MTOW. F-16A was pretty light fighter with almost no BVR/IRST ability at start.
I fully expects the gap between AL-31 and M-88 future developments to increase further as T-50/Su-35 start entering service.

JSR, define “decent AESA.”
Please use numbers and facts and relate these to tactics and doctrine.
Thanks

why you need data. Didnt i put pictures right in front of you.
Do you see fuel tanks or missiles on Rafale larger than the above. If it cannot demonstrate bigger weopons or ET either on wing tip or on wet stations. It means it does not have operationally 24.5 tons MTOW. or empty weight is not correct. it is just paper specification. There is no range data either.

Indians are certainly not expert. see Gorskhov/Scorpene/N-LCA saga when work/price was gross under estimated

About Radar and Engines.
If you consider 2003 F-16E as baseline. I expect to see 100% improvement in radar range and alteast 50% improvement in combined thrust. After all 12 years have passed and Rafale is expecting to cost 150% more than F-16E.
Manufacturing.
Second point since robotics and computer technology has advanced and learning curve has been established. I expect much quicker manufacturing with short lead times.

see MIG example.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/mig-29-production-enters-transformation-360592/

Unless Dassault have some special materials and manufacturing proess that make it lighter there is no way it is so light.
You cannot even prove that even M2K with its tiny fuel capacity, no electronic scanning radar and single engine is lighter than competition.
M2K airframe is simply not designed for stronger engine and CFT. I have doubts about Meteor carrying ability.

Currently we have no evidence Rafale can lift 9.5 Tons and without that there is no way 24.5 Ton MTOW is going to be achieved

Remember if you add CFT to basic Rafale airframe. CFT by itself add weight.
http://defense-update.com/products/c/F-16-CFT.htm

The F-18C is ~11 tons empty equipped. The higher bypath engine of the MiG has a better sfc at subsonic range and ~10% more wing area (42m²) for a similar wing-load at least.
The MiG-29A is ~11 tons empty equipped and has 3400 kg fuel for 1500 km clean range. The old MiG-29K is ~13.9 tons empty equipped and has 4580 kg fuel for 1600 km clean range. By that you are correct and the claim of 2000 km clean range is very optimistic and the related given NTOWs from MiG in mind.

12 Ton for MIG-35 and 13 ton for MIG-29K seem reasonable. both MIG-35 and Rafale has 5 wet stations. MIG-35 is rated at 6.5Ton external. Rafale 9.5 T external.which is unreasonable.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/SvSPuOgZFjI/AAAAAAAABLM/sdjKdn-kUjs/s1600/MiG-35+Writeup-2.JPG

The internal fuel weight that you use there is from the old MiG-29K (9.31?). I have seen this value as high as 5000kg in some publications. Weaponload is stated at 6500kg in the rosboro catalog. The Point is, why would they use all those composites if there was to be no weight gain over the original – just waste time in changing structures? Plus add all the digital instrumentation as well.

So,
MiG-29K
MTOW: 24500kg
Fuel: 5000kg
Weapon load: 6500kg
Empty Equipped: (fluids + Pilot + Pylons?): 24500-11500 = 13000kg.
Empty: ~ 12600kg.

MiG-35 is about 800kg lighter so my guess is 11800kg tops. MiG-29M might be even lighter considering it won’t carry the AESA.

MIG-29K range on internal fuel is 2000km.
These are more reasonable numbers
but i have doubts about Rafale 10 ton weights. Dassault website mentions 10 ton class. There is no mention of range on internal fuel.
There is no proven way of carrying 9.5T external load by Rafale to reach 24.5T MTOW.

They say it cannot carry 3 Black Shaheen with extended range stirke. It means the engines are not powerful or ET are not big enough with 3 cruise missiles.
http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/uae-s-rafale-deal-is-no-mirage.html

A further strange claim the F-18 with two F404 of the USN in mind. Why did they have a twin engine design and not choose the F-16N with a single F100?! They both have the same thrust per engine weight. Similar thing with the MiG-29 till MiG-35. A M2K has no severe problem with a MiG-29 in flight performances and by that no urgent need for an upgraded M53. The present IAF upgrade gives it some further years as an excellent striker. 😉

F-16 started with 23,000lbs. The 29,000lb engine arrived in 1990s. almost 20 years later than the decision to use F-18 for carriers.
My point about M2K is. that first upgraded aircraft will enter service around 2015. so whats the point of buying MICA? when Meteor can be delivered at same time. It is inherent limitation in M2K to exploit heavier missiles both in radar range under severe jamming and weopons stations.
MIG-35 solved all those problems.

You don’t get to ignore UN arms embargoes while having the benefits of veto rights in the UN security council.

What you forget is that Russia wants to adhere to UN rules. Their position in the security council lets them effect power in regions where they otherwise would be powerless.
Take Syria – without the UN machine, Russia would have been unable to stop the UN/Arab league proposal to make Assad step down.
In that case, bye bye Tartus naval base and Yak contract.

Bush went to Irak war without UN. Qatar is in violation of arms embargo on Libya.
Russia has been sending Flankers to Bahrain airshow for couple of years. Do you really think they want to sell Flankers to Bahrain. or reminding the people in region how these jets fly there.
I think China knows more about Russia than Arabs. Consider the vast technological advancements in China. They surely will know the loser.

http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=6113412

Russia need not have to gift away things….I feel there is market left for MiG-29s (excluding India), but there need to be a pro-active policy form the Russian side to see fruitful outcome. According to my projection/speculation, prospects for MiG-29 are as follows…
The key point to success is selling the need, concept & capability to the customer. Rest will follow…

Let me remind once again, it is just a speculation! But a speculation which can be transformed into reality if (& only if) there is a political will. $15-20billion worth in deal for national economy is way much better than any UN crap…!

1) Iran
Quantity needed/projected – 120-200
Deal amount – make it $75-85million/unit (with Zhuk-MFE or Zhuk-AE)

Iran will be the biggest market for any foreseeable future if Russia takes a pro-active stance and use the current UN arms embargo for what it is worth. To wipe your ar$e. Iran faces a formidable force in the region and needs a good built up to meet the challenge thrown against it by the huge number of F-15, Typhoon, F-16 on the other side of the gulf.
If the card is played right, the deal with Iran could dwarf the MMRCA deal in terms of numbers & even in terms of value.

2) Argentina
Quantity needed/projected – 48-60 aircraft.
Deal amount – $60-65million/unit (with Zhuk-M2E or Zhuk-MFE)

Argentina is facing a military built-up in their backyard by the Brits and they require good cost-effective platforms to have a say in the matters. Britain is also proving right what people were saying years ago on the real cause for Falkland war. i.e it was for OIL.

3) Vietnam
Quantity needed/projected – 48-60 aircraft.
Deal amount – $60-65million/unit (with Zhuk-M2E or Zhuk-MFE)

Except for the handfull of Su-30MKV, they do not have any newer platforms. Su-30s looks too big for them and I feel MiG-29 will make much sense for them.

In the case of India
4) India – Indian Navy & Indian Air Force follow-on orders.
Quantity needed/projected
– 60 for Indian Navy (land based to replace maritime Jaguar)
– 60+ for Indian Air Force
Deal amount – $70-80million (with Zhuk-AE)

India/Vietnam are already Flanker users. so they are not suitable canidates.
It is for countries that have used MIG-29 in past or present or not have modern fighters at all.
Since Flanker factories will be booked for building more complex slow moving T-50/Su-34/Su-35 for next 20 years.
It is better to modernize MIG plant to be able to produce atleast 50 aircraft per year.
I will put Afghanistan-Burma-Greece-Serbia- Syria-Egypt-Sudan-NK-Belarus-Mongolia-Armenia-Azerbijan-Argentina in medium users. Iran-Iraq-Kazakhistan among the large users. Medium user less than 50 aircraft and large user greater than 50 aircraft.

some of them can afford to pay and some cant but it is production capacity and training that is needed to deliver things on time. This is how MIG brand can be resurected in 21st century. later on they can start giving them UAVs under MIG brand.