JSRStop 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.
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.
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.
larger nose is now needed. as Rafale started with small to begin with.
Really what upgrade path are you talking about? Upgrading old MiGs with 1990s technology?
Let’s see what weapons will be integrated on both aircraft!
I am sure it will be much more than Rafale in weapons & systems. There wont be independent capability like Glonass with Rafale.
Fine an impressive 45, if no more orders are secured…
pretty impressive for modest investment in airframe. the airframe is fundamentally sound.
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.
I didnot say Su-35 is lighter. just there is no evidence that it is heavier either.
JSRConsider how much time has passed since the MiG-29 was developed and through how many iterations it has evolved. The MiG-29K and its derivatives (29M/35) are most certainly the last major versions we’ll. The IN has some 45 ac on order…:rolleyes:
consider how much time has passed since Rafale is developed. Rafale is currently on its last legs of development.
The Rafale has a robust upgrade path and is in many areas a fair deal more capable than any Fulcrum variant, it subsequently doesn’t need so many upgrades.
does this robust upgrade path includes upgrated engines, enlarged nose?
Fulcrum has even more robust upgrade path. All the new weopons for PAK-FA will tickle down. IN will certainly use those Fulcrums for next 40 years.
How about you proving YOU allegations instead of asking me to prove the opposite of what you claim?
The rest of your trolling isn’t even worth commenting.
I clearly mentioned there is differences in Su-35 airframe and subsytems that didnot contribute to weight increase.
JSRComplete bull! Redesigning an airframe is a complex, time consuming and work intensive task. It isn’t cheap either and you won’t see any significant changes to the airframe anytime soon, if ever at all. The Fulcrum is at height of its development cycle.
Current MIG-29K is complete redesign of MIG-29. So how many billions are spent on developing it?. Its a viable product and IN signed for second batch.
No one is willing to fund Rafale development be it UAE or Brazil. They will get standard aircraft with very slow production rate. There will be no TVC option for Rafale as no one can fund it. It will have small AESA more suitable for helicopters.
Sure the Russians are magicians and can add endless stuff to an airframe without increasing its weight.:rolleyes: In what parallel universe do you live?
so show me alternative data. Su-35 has these new features which previous Flankers lacked. It even has higher top speed & ceiling. Su-27SKM is Mach 2.15 while Su-35 is Mach 2.25. Su-35 canopy is treated. every thing adds to airframe weight.
Unviabe for what your fanboy fantasies? The Rafale is in fact not heavier than a CFT equipped F-16 blk 60.
Nonesense as well, but what can we expect?
Not heavier than F-16E? Perhaps F-16E has AESA.
Your supporting a medicore product called Rafale that has no future.
JSRThe 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.
The same manufacturing technologies can be applied to MIG-35 that are in Su-35. MIG-35 has growth potential with little investment but not Rafale.
Su-35 has auxilary power unit, 3D TVC, Airframe strengthened to cope with 11.5 tons of internal fuel, Airframe strengthened for 14 weopon stations with increased airframe life. More electronic subsystems. All these didnot contribute to increase in weight.
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.
Rafale nose size, engines and very high cost of manufacturing make it unviable. Rafale cannot be lighter than F-16E.
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.
External stores like carrying ET/Strike weopopns will entirely neglect RCS advantage but not AAMs.
JSRThe empty weight of the MiG-35 has not been disclosed but it is most likely heavier than the MiG-29M whose empty weight was 11500 kg, given the larger wings, enlarged intakes to feed the RD33MK and additional stuff like the heaver radar etc. it is likely to have gained some weight. TVC itself is not going to boost the engines thrust output either so that point is rather moot and as of now no one has ordered the MiG-35, let alone any MiG variant equipped with the KLIVT nozzles. It is an option, not taken by any customer thus far, though available.
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
In heavy strike configurations it could need more power, but in normal AA configurations it compares well. Even if we assume an unrealistic low empty weight for the MiG-35 of 11500 kg.
We get 11500 kg EW+5200 kg fuel/2 x 9000 kg thrust/42 sqm wing area
TWR: 1.078:1
Wing loading: 397 kg/sqm
Fuel fraction: 31.13%Rafale C 9500 kg EW/fuel 4750 kg/45.7 sqm wing area/2 x 7650 kg thrust
TWR: 1.073:1
Wing loading: 312 kg/sqm
Fuel fraction: 33.3%So in effect we have a 2+% better fuel fraction, an 85 kg lower wing loading and a 0.5% lower TWR. And as said that’s already a rather optimistic assumption in favour for the MiG-35!
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.
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/specifications-and-performance-data.html?L=1
As I noted…
The Su-30 has not such a great TWR at all and is in fact inferior to the Rafale here.
Even if we calculate with only 60% of internal fuel its TWR is just around 1.03:1! This is based on the normal takeoff weight figure of 24900 kg with 5270 kg (60%) of internal fuel subtracting the included missile weight and accounting for two pylons arriving at an estimated 24250 kg. It might be a bit lower than that but the Su-30MKI is hardly more powerful as such. If we calculate the TWR for maximum TOW we arrive at 0.62:1 for the Rafale and 0.64:1 on the Su-30MKI, a whooping 2% difference.
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.
JSRThat’s an ignorant view. Being available in a carrier variant and a land based variant is fine, but irrelevant for most customers and it doesn’t tell you anything about the overall operational versatility of the aircraft. And if we compare the thrust grow the F-16 has experienced vs that of the MiG-29 it’s apparent the the US fighter has gained some 4 t of additional thrust from the earlier variants powered by the F100-PW-200/220 (10800 kg) to the blk 60 with a reheat thrust of 14772 kg! The MiG-29’s increase in thust is much more modest from the RD33’s 8300 kg per engine to 9000 kg of the new RD33MK! That’s a thrust gain of just 1400 kg for both engines combined!
No doubt F-16 has gained 4ton of extra thrust but it also has gain 3 tons of extra weight. and i agree 4000 F-16 are built so much more money is invested in its growth.
MIG-29 got 1.4 ton of extra thrust but with much more internal fuel and carrier verstallity. The gain of weight of MIG-35 is not much unlike F-16. infact MIG-35 gained TVC.
but that is clearly not the case with Rafale. It will stay the same for long period of time.
Quoted range performance figures for the radars indicate that the RBE2’s range is already comparable to that of the Zhuk-M and the RBE2AA will exceed this by 40-50%. 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. Wrt the engines that view is ignorant as well considering that the MiG is larger and heavier than the Rafale, though Rafale’s MTOW is in fact 1 t higher than that of the newest Fulcrum derivatives! So at high TOWs the MiG-29 offers a better TWR, at NTOW in a light AA configuration the two fighters are well comparable and the Rafale is apparently not underpowered!
Rafale is underpowerd once you load up with decent load. Radar ranges are in theory. but i will not surprized if Zhuk-M2 of MIG-29UPG of IAF exceeds current Rafale radar.
Rafale’s maximum external payload is 9500 kg vs 8000 kg on the Su-30MK! However it’s fair to say that these are more theoretical values and depending on the exact configurations the Flanker may have an edge.
Rafale cannot utilize 9500kg external load. it is theoretical value.
Up to date there are no confirmed plans for re-engine the Su-30 whatsoever and a larger fuel load is only of relevance if you consider the weight of the aircraft itself and its engines fuel consumption and airframe drag as well. Furthermore radar capability isn’t defined by raw power output and range either and avionics/sensors as a whole cover much more than just the radar!
Su-30 does not need upgrade as it has decent power but upgraded engines are available unlike Rafale.
JSR:rolleyes: Better than the Rafale Airframe ?
The Rafale for me is the ultimate multi-role airframe, its so much smaller than the Su 30 but can carry more payload. Can operate from carriers, can do Nuclear strike, and no slouch in A2A either. Its the pinnacle of fourth generation fighter design. Pity the French are worse than Russians when it comes to exports.
Rafale is actually the worse fighter. It is way underpowerd for two engines and its nose cannot fit decent size radar.
There is practical zero chance of vastly upgraded engines for Rafale in next 10 years.
can you show me how Rafale can carry as much as Su-30? Su-30 carries 10 tons fuel and 8 tons of weopon load with huge radar in nose.
Su-30 has clear upgrade map of upgrated engines and even more internal fuel when you consider Su-35/Su-34. with latest PESA/AESA upgrade the electronic ability of Sukhoi will vastly surpass Rafale.
Rafale prime time passed. France bad economic decision will not allow it to make rafale competitive.
JSRok ok, maybe if the MiG-29 ended up being something like this with an AL-31..
MIG-29 is more verstile than F-16/J-10. Try to make carrier borne version of those single engine fighters. Engines will not cope with weight increase
I would say MIG-29 airframe is even better than Rafale. Just the larger nose and increase engine power give it distinct advantage.
JSRThe Indian Air Force appears to disagree and specified theirs (including, it appears, the future second batch) on the Il-76 platform, the key reason AFAIK being that the G550 was judged to offer too few operator consoles. Also, the larger the carrier aircraft the bigger the radar arrays it can haul, and given equivalent technology larger arrays mean better performance – whether a business/regional jet can satisfy Russian requirements is for them to decide.
It is the 4 engine power that make a difference. You dont want ur AWACS power to be less than non-aft 5G fighter.
It seems Russians have good idea of A-50EI performance. i would believe them considering the amount of cash they have and corrupt system of India/Israel to provide such information
http://www.royfc.com/news/feb/2110feb01.htm
New AWACS Under Development in Russia
That the G550 has better endurance says more about how bad the Il-76 is in this regard – compare it to the Il-96 (which is what I think Russia should use) or Japan’s E-767 for a more relevant benchmark.
No one know endurace of A-50EI as it could have dedicated extra fuel tanks. Potentially with 60 ton Payload. you can use 20 tons for equipment and rest 40 tons increase fuel load.
If the Russian government wants to pay for the additional assembly line, sure. Do they, however?
They already paid for IL-476. and A-100/IL-78 will come out of it. Civil Planes are simply not certified for this job and unlikely to have raw field performance
JSRIn past when aircrafts were less complex and cheaper so many types can be afforded
Companies in Germany/US that have invested so much and is going to be depended even more on China can potentially veto top of the line systems/components/missiles to countries like Vietnam/Malaysia/Indonesia that can afford small amounts at time. They may get only second grade weopons like Taiwan got only single engine F-16/E-2 with no sub force.And compare that Vietnam with its Bation & Club missile system order.
Second thing is that austerity across EU that will not allow money for deep modernization for entire research, materials, industrial chain and centralized flight testing to next stage. there is no $200B package like Russia.
So there cannot 40 year partnership either. India will soon find about MMRCA that EU can neither afford the offsets nor technology for next stage.
JSRhttp://russiandefpolicy.wordpress.com/tag/irkut/
Irkut President Aleksey Fedorov told Interfaks the manufacturer sees declining demand for the Su-30MK family, and wants to cease production over the next ten years. At that time, it will be producing only the Yak-130 trainer for the military. Irkut intends to concentrate its efforts and investment on building the MS-21 regional passenger jet.
Fedorov told Izvestiya the Su-30MK export model will be “Russified” for 1.5 billion rubles – the onboard computers and displays will change from English to Russian, and some French and Israeli components will be swapped out for Russian ones. The Russian variant may be called the Su-30SM.
JSRthose are reasons but not excuses. Its Rosobonextports responsibility to take production capacity limits in mind and give reasonable dates (and prices for that matter) to its customers.
you’re basically saying.. “please try to understand the thief that robbed a bunch of stores, he was going through some hard times, really needed money for his kid, blah blah” but in the end those reasons do not concern the victims. or in this case, customers.
what ever.
You cannot compare Irkut product quality with older plants. They are simply getting better long term product. and with comprehensive training. I dont see any complaints. Irkut has very high reputation. Malaysia investment firm wants to get exclusive marketing rights and launch customer for MS-21.
JSRok so we hear what the Brit and American aviation industries think about their HAL counterparts.. I wonder what the Russian’s think.
why would they express it in Public as long as HAL sent them a $1b a year for decades to come.
JSRso its hardly IAPO’s fault because of your guesses? stop being a Russian aviation apologist.
but in some ways I agree, its not totally IAPO’s fault.. most of the blame goes to Rosobonexport. And no its not always about funding.. this is not the first time Rosobonexport either screwed up with the contract and/or super late in delivery. See Indian Su-30MKI deliveries, or the Mig-29 fiasco in Algeria (not Algeri).
I think Irkut is the best plant in Russia. It has half the employees of Knaapo.
It has to organize production of Yak-130 and do investments for MS-21. it takes long lead time to do those things. Older Yak-130 are not built in Irkut.
JSRhttp://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/07/27/345236/ms-21-shows-its-colours.html
http://www.mida.gov.my/env3/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,print,0&cntnt01articleid=781&cntnt01showtemplate=false&cntnt01returnid=388
based on abve Super-30 wil be more logical choice as Irkut has good reputation.
http://pics.aviaport.ru/cache/galleries/269/800×800/269136-maks_36.jpg
When head of BAE is saying that China will be accessible. This is going to create problem down line in SE & India for top of the line systems and exlusive rights.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/06/uk-defence-idUSL5E7K64K420110906
“We can’t rely on traditional markets for growth any more – the real growth will come from international markets,” Ian King, the chief executive of Europe’s biggest defence contractor BAE Systems , told an ADS defence conference in London.
“In five years India will be spending more on defence than the UK. China and Russia will also become accessible in time,” King said.
Sign In
